274 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21193910)
1. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images.
Vecchio S; Albanese A; Vignoli P; Taibi A
Eur Radiol; 2011 Jun; 21(6):1207-13. PubMed ID: 21193910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Das M; Gifford HC; O'Connor JM; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2009 Jun; 36(6):1976-84. PubMed ID: 19610286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Artifact reduction methods for truncated projections in iterative breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
Zhang Y; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Wei J; Zhou C; Hadjiiski LM
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2009; 33(3):426-35. PubMed ID: 19478639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis.
Zhao B; Zhou J; Hu YH; Mertelmeier T; Ludwig J; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2009 Jan; 36(1):240-51. PubMed ID: 19235392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Hu YH; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2011 May; 38(5):2455-66. PubMed ID: 21776781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Digital breast tomosynthesis image reconstruction using 2D and 3D total variation minimization.
Ertas M; Yildirim I; Kamasak M; Akan A
Biomed Eng Online; 2013 Oct; 12():112. PubMed ID: 24172584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A Case for Wide-Angle Breast Tomosynthesis.
Samei E; Thompson J; Richard S; Bowsher J
Acad Radiol; 2015 Jul; 22(7):860-9. PubMed ID: 25920335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An iterative reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis imaging using real data at three radiation doses.
Polat A; Yildirim I
J Xray Sci Technol; 2018; 26(3):347-360. PubMed ID: 29504549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?
Nakashima K; Uematsu T; Itoh T; Takahashi K; Nishimura S; Hayashi T; Sugino T
Eur Radiol; 2017 Feb; 27(2):570-577. PubMed ID: 27236817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Zelakiewicz S; Schmitz A; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Nees AV; Neal CH; Carson P; Lu Y; Hadjiiski L; Wei J
Radiology; 2014 Dec; 273(3):675-85. PubMed ID: 25007048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Selective-diffusion regularization for enhancement of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):6003-14. PubMed ID: 21158312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Eben EB; Jebsen IN; Krager M; Haakenaasen U; Ekseth U; Izadi M; Hofvind S; Gullien R
Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):655-63. PubMed ID: 24484063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
