These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22559613)
21. The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Hadjipanteli A; Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Looney PT; Wells K; Dance DR; Young KC Phys Med Biol; 2017 Feb; 62(3):858-877. PubMed ID: 28072582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Comparison between software volumetric breast density estimates in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography images in a large public screening cohort. Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Fieselmann A; Lång K; Sartor H Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):330-336. PubMed ID: 29943180 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet-printed anthropomorphic phantom. Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Ghammraoui B; Cheng WC; Lo JY; Glick SJ Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3883-3892. PubMed ID: 31135960 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms. Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography using a hybrid performance test. Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Van Ongeval C; Aerts G; Stalmans D; Zanca F; Shaheen E; De Keyzer F; Dance DR; Young KC; Bosmans H Phys Med Biol; 2015 May; 60(10):3939-58. PubMed ID: 25909596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Can compression be reduced for breast tomosynthesis? Monte carlo study on mass and microcalcification conspicuity in tomosynthesis. Saunders RS; Samei E; Lo JY; Baker JA Radiology; 2009 Jun; 251(3):673-82. PubMed ID: 19474373 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Generation and analysis of clinically relevant breast imaging x-ray spectra. Hernandez AM; Seibert JA; Nosratieh A; Boone JM Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2148-2160. PubMed ID: 28303582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Staging of breast cancer and the advanced applications of digital mammogram: what the physician needs to know? Helal MH; Mansour SM; Zaglol M; Salaleldin LA; Nada OM; Haggag MA Br J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 90(1071):20160717. PubMed ID: 28055247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Svahn T; Andersson I; Chakraborty D; Svensson S; Ikeda D; Förnvik D; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Zackrisson S Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):113-7. PubMed ID: 20228048 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Fischmann A; Siegmann KC; Wersebe A; Claussen CD; Müller-Schimpfle M Br J Radiol; 2005 Apr; 78(928):312-5. PubMed ID: 15774591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Detection of simulated lesions on data-compressed digital mammograms. Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Waldrop SM; D'Orsi CJ Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 15983071 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Wallis MG; Moa E; Zanca F; Leifland K; Danielsson M Radiology; 2012 Mar; 262(3):788-96. PubMed ID: 22274840 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Optimization of the key imaging parameters for detection of microcalcifications in a newly developed digital breast tomosynthesis system. Park HS; Kim YS; Kim HJ; Choi JG; Choi YW Clin Imaging; 2013; 37(6):993-9. PubMed ID: 23891226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Importance of point-by-point back projection correction for isocentric motion in digital breast tomosynthesis: relevance to morphology of structures such as microcalcifications. Chen Y; Lo JY; Dobbins JT Med Phys; 2007 Oct; 34(10):3885-92. PubMed ID: 17985634 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Penalized maximum likelihood reconstruction for improved microcalcification detection in breast tomosynthesis. Das M; Gifford HC; O'Connor JM; Glick SJ IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2011 Apr; 30(4):904-14. PubMed ID: 21041158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]