122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22225296)
1. The readout thickness versus the measured thickness for a range of screen film mammography and full-field digital mammography units.
Hauge IH; Hogg P; Szczepura K; Connolly P; McGill G; Mercer C
Med Phys; 2012 Jan; 39(1):263-71. PubMed ID: 22225296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.
Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Averbukh A; Moran C; Berns EA; Yaffe MJ; Herman B; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9. PubMed ID: 20093597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme.
Hauge IH; Pedersen K; Sanderud A; Hofvind S; Olerud HM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jan; 148(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 21335333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography.
Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Karssemeijer N
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1712-8. PubMed ID: 12906188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.
Ma WK; McEntee MF; Mercer C; Kelly J; Millington S; Hogg P
Br J Radiol; 2016; 89(1059):20150715. PubMed ID: 26739577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography.
Aslund M; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Danielsson M
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):933-40. PubMed ID: 16696469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors.
Ghetti C; Borrini A; Ortenzia O; Rossi R; Ordóñez PL
Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 18383665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Calibrated breast density methods for full field digital mammography: a system for serial quality control and inter-system generalization.
Lu B; Smallwood AM; Sellers TA; Drukteinis JS; Heine JJ; Fowler EE
Med Phys; 2015 Feb; 42(2):623-36. PubMed ID: 25652480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accurate estimation of compressed breast thickness in mammography.
Mawdsley GE; Tyson AH; Peressotti CL; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2009 Feb; 36(2):577-86. PubMed ID: 19291997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.
Del Turco MR; Mantellini P; Ciatto S; Bonardi R; Martinelli F; Lazzari B; Houssami N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Oct; 189(4):860-6. PubMed ID: 17885057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Technical challenges in generalizing calibration techniques for breast density measurements.
Fowler EEE; Smallwood AM; Khan NZ; Kilpatrick K; Sellers TA; Heine J
Med Phys; 2019 Feb; 46(2):679-688. PubMed ID: 30525207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Dose reduction through gridless technique in digital full-field mammography].
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Berzeg S; Bick U; Fischer T; Hamm B
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):769-74. PubMed ID: 12811688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
