96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23039684)
1. Positron emission mammography (PEM): effect of activity concentration, object size, and object contrast on phantom lesion detection.
Macdonald LR; Wang CL; Eissa M; Haseley D; Kelly MM; Liu F; Parikh JR; Beatty JD; Rogers JV
Med Phys; 2012 Oct; 39(10):6499-508. PubMed ID: 23039684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.
Shkumat NA; Springer A; Walker CM; Rohren EM; Yang WT; Adrada BE; Arribas E; Carkaci S; Chuang HH; Santiago L; Mawlawi OR
Med Phys; 2011 Sep; 38(9):5176-85. PubMed ID: 21978062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The potential role of positron emission mammography for detection of breast cancer. A phantom study.
Raylman RR; Majewski S; Wojcik R; Weisenberger AG; Kross B; Popov V; Bishop HA
Med Phys; 2000 Aug; 27(8):1943-54. PubMed ID: 10984240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the quantitative accuracy of a commercially available positron emission mammography scanner.
Springer A; Mawlawi OR
Med Phys; 2011 Apr; 38(4):2132-9. PubMed ID: 21626946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Positron Emission Mammography Image Interpretation for Reduced Image Count Levels.
MacDonald LR; Hippe DS; Bender LC; Cotter EW; Voria PR; Hallam PS; Wang CL; Haseley DR; Kelly MM; Parikh JR; Beatty JD; Rogers JV
J Nucl Med; 2016 Mar; 57(3):348-54. PubMed ID: 26635337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A dedicated phantom design for positron emission mammography performance evaluation.
Torres-Urzúa LF; Alva-Sánchez H; Martínez-Dávalos A; García-Pérez FO; Peruyero-Rivas RM; Rodríguez-Villafuerte M
Phys Med Biol; 2020 Dec; 65(24):245003. PubMed ID: 32693400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography?
Huda W; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR; Bertrand EA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1355-66. PubMed ID: 17070453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Image improvement method for positron emission mammography.
Slavine NV; Seiler SJ; McColl RW; Lenkinski RE
Phys Med; 2017 Jul; 39():164-173. PubMed ID: 28688583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The effect of background structure on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography.
Kotre CJ
Br J Radiol; 1998 Nov; 71(851):1162-7. PubMed ID: 10434911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Phantom study of the impact of reconstruction parameters on the detection of mini- and micro-volume lesions with a low-dose PET/CT acquisition protocol.
Ferretti A; Bellan E; Gava M; Chondrogiannis S; Massaro A; Nibale O; Rubello D
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 81(11):3363-70. PubMed ID: 22613508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A fillable micro-hollow sphere lesion detection phantom using superposition.
Difilippo FP; Gallo SL; Klatte RS; Patel S
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Sep; 55(18):5363-81. PubMed ID: 20736497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Positron emission mammography-guided breast biopsy.
Raylman RR; Majewski S; Weisenberger AG; Popov V; Wojcik R; Kross B; Schreiman JS; Bishop HA
J Nucl Med; 2001 Jun; 42(6):960-6. PubMed ID: 11390563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: SAFIRE versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver.
Baker ME; Dong F; Primak A; Obuchowski NA; Einstein D; Gandhi N; Herts BR; Purysko A; Remer E; Vachhani N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Jul; 199(1):8-18. PubMed ID: 22733888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Tissue Cancellation in Dual Energy Mammography Using a Calibration Phantom Customized for Direct Mapping.
Han S; Kang DG
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2014 Jan; 33(1):74-84. PubMed ID: 24043372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: PEM Flex Solo II.
MacDonald L; Edwards J; Lewellen T; Haseley D; Rogers J; Kinahan P
J Nucl Med; 2009 Oct; 50(10):1666-75. PubMed ID: 19759118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computation of realistic virtual phantom images for an objective lesion detectability assessment in digital mammography.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2011 Dec; 33(10):1276-86. PubMed ID: 21741291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Positron emission mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Is maximum PEM uptake value a valuable threshold for malignant breast cancer detection?
Müller FH; Farahati J; Müller AG; Gillman E; Hentschel M
Nuklearmedizin; 2016; 55(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 26627876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Results of preliminary clinical trials of the positron emission mammography system PEM-I: a dedicated breast imaging system producing glucose metabolic images using FDG.
Murthy K; Aznar M; Thompson CJ; Loutfi A; Lisbona R; Gagnon JH
J Nucl Med; 2000 Nov; 41(11):1851-8. PubMed ID: 11079494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements.
Raylman RR; Majewski S; Smith MF; Proffitt J; Hammond W; Srinivasan A; McKisson J; Popov V; Weisenberger A; Judy CO; Kross B; Ramasubramanian S; Banta LE; Kinahan PE; Champley K
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Feb; 53(3):637-53. PubMed ID: 18199907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
