213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21626930)
1. Comparative performance of multiview stereoscopic and mammographic display modalities for breast lesion detection.
Webb LJ; Samei E; Lo JY; Baker JA; Ghate SV; Kim C; Soo MS; Walsh R
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):1972-80. PubMed ID: 21626930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. ROC study of the effect of stereoscopic imaging on assessment of breast lesions.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski LM; Lydick JT; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Nees A; Blane CE; Sahiner B
Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 15895583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Simulated lesion, human observer performance comparison between thin-section dedicated breast CT images versus computed thick-section simulated projection images of the breast.
Chen L; Boone JM; Abbey CK; Hargreaves J; Bateni C; Lindfors KK; Yang K; Nosratieh A; Hernandez A; Gazi P
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Apr; 60(8):3347-58. PubMed ID: 25825980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Visibility of microcalcification clusters and masses in breast tomosynthesis image volumes and digital mammography: a 4AFC human observer study.
Timberg P; Baath M; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Ruschin M
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2431-7. PubMed ID: 22559613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.
Reiser I; Nishikawa RM; Giger ML; Wu T; Rafferty EA; Moore R; Kopans DB
Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):482-91. PubMed ID: 16532956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Celis V; Geniets C; Provost V; Pauwels H; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):765-75. PubMed ID: 19378737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.
Timberg P; Båth M; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Ruschin M
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5618-26. PubMed ID: 21158273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays.
Samei E; Poolla A; Ulissey MJ; Lewin JM
Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 17434067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The simulation of 3D mass models in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Shaheen E; De Keyzer F; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC; Van Ongeval C
Med Phys; 2014 Aug; 41(8):081913. PubMed ID: 25086544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Optimizing Case-based detection performance in a multiview CAD system for mammography.
Samulski M; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2011 Apr; 30(4):1001-9. PubMed ID: 21233045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Detection of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis using complementary information of simulated projection.
Kim ST; Kim DH; Ro YM
Med Phys; 2015 Dec; 42(12):7043-58. PubMed ID: 26632059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis on assessment of the lesions in dense breast: a preliminary study].
Li Y; Ye ZX; Wu T; An YH; Liu PF; Bao RX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2013 Jan; 35(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 23648297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.
Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A novel pre-processing technique for improving image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Kim H; Lee T; Hong J; Sabir S; Lee JR; Choi YW; Kim HH; Chae EY; Cho S
Med Phys; 2017 Feb; 44(2):417-425. PubMed ID: 28032909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
