491 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22149832)
1. 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]
2. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of scatter rejection and low-contrast performance of scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR), slot-scan digital radiography, and full-field digital radiography systems for chest phantom imaging.
Liu X; Shaw CC; Lai CJ; Wang T
Med Phys; 2011 Jan; 38(1):23-33. PubMed ID: 21361171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Noise equalization for detection of microcalcification clusters in direct digital mammogram images.
McLoughlin KJ; Bones PJ; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2004 Mar; 23(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 15027524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Comparison of slot scanning digital mammography system with full-field digital mammography system.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Geiser W; Chen L; Arribas E; Stephens T; Davis PL; Ayyar GP; Dogan BE; Nguyen VA; Whitman GJ; Yang WT
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2339-46. PubMed ID: 18649467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images.
Jing H; Yang Y; Wernick MN; Yarusso LM; Nishikawa RM
Med Phys; 2012 Jul; 39(7):4386-94. PubMed ID: 22830771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR) implemented with an amorphous selenium flat-panel detector: initial experience.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Chen L; Han T; Zhong Y; Shen Y; Wang T; Shaw CC
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Nov; 54(22):6959-78. PubMed ID: 19887717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
Chakraborty DP
J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms.
Ikejimba LC; Glick SJ; Choudhury KR; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2016 Oct; 43(10):5593. PubMed ID: 27782687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM.
Al Khalifah K; Davidson R; Zhou A
Radiol Phys Technol; 2020 Mar; 13(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 31749130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.
Ghani MU; Wong MD; Wu D; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Fuh J; Wu X; Liu H
Phys Med Biol; 2017 May; 62(9):3523-3538. PubMed ID: 28379851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
