594 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22559643)
21. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
Segui JA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Optimization of the exposure parameters in digital mammography using contrast-detail metrics.
Rojas LJ; Fausto AMF; Mol AW; Velasco FG; Abreu POS; Henriques G; Furquim TAC
Phys Med; 2017 Oct; 42():13-18. PubMed ID: 29173906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Performance assessment of active vs passive pixel x-ray angiography detector systems using a bias-corrected channelized Hotelling observer and adult patient-equivalent experimental conditions.
Fetterly KA
Med Phys; 2018 Nov; 45(11):4888-4896. PubMed ID: 30315578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Development and validation of a hybrid simulation technique for cone beam CT: application to an oral imaging system.
Zhang G; Pauwels R; Marshall N; Shaheen E; Nuyts J; Jacobs R; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Sep; 56(18):5823-43. PubMed ID: 21846936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A comprehensive model for quantum noise characterization in digital mammography.
Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Mar; 61(5):2083-108. PubMed ID: 26895467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Determining air kerma from pixel values in digital mammography.
Toroi P; Nieminen MT; Tenkanen-Rautakoski P; Varjonen M
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jun; 54(12):3865-79. PubMed ID: 19491454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography.
Urbanczyk H; McDonagh E; Marshall NW; Castellano I
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1987-2003. PubMed ID: 22429938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Visibility of simulated microcalcifications--a hardcopy-based comparison of three mammographic systems.
Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Whitman GJ; Johnston DA; Yang WT; Selinko V; Arribas E; Dogan B; Kappadath SC
Med Phys; 2005 Jan; 32(1):182-94. PubMed ID: 15719969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Realistic simulation of reduced-dose CT with noise modeling and sinogram synthesis using DICOM CT images.
Won Kim C; Kim JH
Med Phys; 2014 Jan; 41(1):011901. PubMed ID: 24387509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Scatter radiation intensities around a clinical digital breast tomosynthesis unit and the impact on radiation shielding considerations.
Yang K; Li X; Liu B
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1096-110. PubMed ID: 26936697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Visual grading analysis of digital neonatal chest phantom X-ray images: Impact of detector type, dose and image processing on image quality.
Smet MH; Breysem L; Mussen E; Bosmans H; Marshall NW; Cockmartin L
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jul; 28(7):2951-2959. PubMed ID: 29460076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Noise power spectra of images from digital mammography detectors.
Williams MB; Mangiafico PA; Simoni PU
Med Phys; 1999 Jul; 26(7):1279-93. PubMed ID: 10435530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
Boyce SJ; Samei E
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 May; 54(9):2845-61. PubMed ID: 19384004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control.
Carton AK; Vandenbroucke D; Struye L; Maidment AD; Kao YH; Albert M; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1684-95. PubMed ID: 16013727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Investigation of noise sources for digital radiography systems.
Ergun L; Olgar T
Radiol Phys Technol; 2017 Jun; 10(2):171-179. PubMed ID: 27696210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
