593 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22559643)
1. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Diaz O; Young KC
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. NPWE model observer as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis of digital detectors in general radiography.
Van Peteghem N; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Nov; 61(21):N575-N591. PubMed ID: 27754987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Investigation of the performance of digital mammographic X-ray equipment: determination of noise equivalent quanta (NEQQC) and detective quantum efficiency (DQEQC) compared with the automated analysis of CDMAM test images with CDCOM and CDIC programs.
Loos C; Buhr H; Blendl C
Rofo; 2013 Jul; 185(7):635-43. PubMed ID: 23801376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Effective detective quantum efficiency for two mammography systems: measurement and comparison against established metrics.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101916. PubMed ID: 24089918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors.
Marshall NW; Mackenzie A; Honey ID
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Feb; 56(4):979-99. PubMed ID: 21248386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Method for simulating dose reduction in digital mammography using the Anscombe transformation.
Borges LR; Oliveira HCR; Nunes PF; Bakic PR; Maidment ADA; Vieira MAC
Med Phys; 2016 Jun; 43(6):2704-2714. PubMed ID: 27277017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
