241 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22755704)
1. 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]
2. Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.
Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
Eur Radiol; 2016 Mar; 26(3):874-83. PubMed ID: 26105023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.
Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Cooke J; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
Phys Med; 2016 Apr; 32(4):568-74. PubMed ID: 27061872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Celis V; Geniets C; Provost V; Pauwels H; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):765-75. PubMed ID: 19378737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies.
Ruschin M; Timberg P; Båth M; Hemdal B; Svahn T; Saunders RS; Samei E; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Chakrabort DP; Tingber A
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):400-7. PubMed ID: 17388156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of image processing on the detection of cancers in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Halling-Brown MD; Mackenzie A; Chakraborty DP; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Aug; 203(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 25055275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Toward image quality assessment in mammography using model observers: Detection of a calcification-like object.
Bouwman RW; Mackenzie A; van Engen RE; Broeders MJM; Young KC; Dance DR; den Heeten GJ; Veldkamp WJH
Med Phys; 2017 Nov; 44(11):5726-5739. PubMed ID: 28837225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Improved microcalcification visualization using dual-energy digital mammography.
Tsai CJ; Chen RC; Peng HL; Hsu WL; Lee JJ
Acta Radiol; 2013 Jul; 54(6):614-21. PubMed ID: 23528569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: a 3D approach.
Sahiner B; Chan HP; Hadjiiski LM; Helvie MA; Wei J; Zhou C; Lu Y
Med Phys; 2012 Jan; 39(1):28-39. PubMed ID: 22225272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Visually lossless threshold determination for microcalcification detection in wavelet compressed mammograms.
Kocsis O; Costaridou L; Varaki L; Likaki E; Kalogeropoulou C; Skiadopoulos S; Panayiotakis G
Eur Radiol; 2003 Oct; 13(10):2390-6. PubMed ID: 14534807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Jacobs J; Oyen R; Bosmans H
Br J Radiol; 2012 Dec; 85(1020):e1233-41. PubMed ID: 22844032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison between the electronic magnification (EM) and true magnification (TM) of breast phantom images using a CDMAM phantom.
Vahey K; Ryan E; McLean D; Poulos A; Rickard M
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jul; 81(7):1514-9. PubMed ID: 21481555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of automated CDMAM readings for non-standard CDMAM imaging conditions: grid-less acquisitions and scatter correction.
Binst J; Sterckx B; Bemelmans F; Cockmartin L; Van Peteghem N; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):350-3. PubMed ID: 25821214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
