150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21978062)
1. Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.
Shkumat NA; Springer A; Walker CM; Rohren EM; Yang WT; Adrada BE; Arribas E; Carkaci S; Chuang HH; Santiago L; Mawlawi OR
Med Phys; 2011 Sep; 38(9):5176-85. PubMed ID: 21978062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of the quantitative accuracy of a commercially available positron emission mammography scanner.
Springer A; Mawlawi OR
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):2132-9. PubMed ID: 21626946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Positron emission mammography (PEM): effect of activity concentration, object size, and object contrast on phantom lesion detection.
Macdonald LR; Wang CL; Eissa M; Haseley D; Kelly MM; Liu F; Parikh JR; Beatty JD; Rogers JV
Med Phys; 2012 Oct; 39(10):6499-508. PubMed ID: 23039684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The potential role of positron emission mammography for detection of breast cancer. A phantom study.
Raylman RR; Majewski S; Wojcik R; Weisenberger AG; Kross B; Popov V; Bishop HA
Med Phys; 2000 Aug; 27(8):1943-54. PubMed ID: 10984240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A dedicated phantom design for positron emission mammography performance evaluation.
Torres-Urzúa LF; Alva-Sánchez H; Martínez-Dávalos A; García-Pérez FO; Peruyero-Rivas RM; Rodríguez-Villafuerte M
Phys Med Biol; 2020 Dec; 65(24):245003. PubMed ID: 32693400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
[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. Image improvement method for positron emission mammography.
Slavine NV; Seiler SJ; McColl RW; Lenkinski RE
Phys Med; 2017 Jul; 39():164-173. PubMed ID: 28688583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. SU-E-I-83: Detectability Limits of a New Positron Emission Mammography in Relation to Tumour-Size, Tumour-To-Background Ratio and Activity Concentration.
Gonzalez AV; Hernández TG; Granero D; Gonzalez LB; Ferrando JR; Sanchez R; Ferrer J
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part5):3644. PubMed ID: 28517629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
Al Khalifah K; Brindabhan A; Mathew M; Davidson R
J Allied Health; 2019; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Model observer performance in contrast-enhanced lesions in breast CT: The influence of contrast concentration on detectability.
Lyu SH; Hernandez AM; Shakeri SA; Abbey CK; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2023 Nov; 50(11):6748-6761. PubMed ID: 37639329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Development of a mechatronic guidance system for targeted ultrasound-guided biopsy under high-resolution positron emission mammography localization.
Park CKS; Bax JS; Gardi L; Knull E; Fenster A
Med Phys; 2021 Apr; 48(4):1859-1873. PubMed ID: 33577113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Phantom and methodology for comparison of small lesion detectability in PET.
Wollenweber SD; Alessio AM; Kinahan PE
Med Phys; 2023 May; 50(5):2998-3007. PubMed ID: 36576853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements.
Raylman RR; Majewski S; Smith MF; Proffitt J; Hammond W; Srinivasan A; McKisson J; Popov V; Weisenberger A; Judy CO; Kross B; Ramasubramanian S; Banta LE; Kinahan PE; Champley K
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Feb; 53(3):637-53. PubMed ID: 18199907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Microcalcification detectability using a bench-top prototype photon-counting breast CT based on a Si strip detector.
Cho HM; Ding H; Barber WC; Iwanczyk JS; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):4401-10. PubMed ID: 26133636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
