177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23118577)
1. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images.
Chakraborty DP
Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images.
Chakraborty DP; Eckert MP
Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 7565344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Impact of using the new American College of Radiology digital mammography phantom on quality survey in modern digital mammography systems: Evidence from nationwide surveys in Taiwan.
Hwang YS; Tsai HY; Lin YY; Liao YL
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Aug; 117():9-14. PubMed ID: 31307658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast imaging using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital mammographic system: stability of a clinical prototype.
Vedantham S; Karellas A; Suryanarayanan S; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE
J Digit Imaging; 2000 Nov; 13(4):191-9. PubMed ID: 11110258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
Al Khalifah K; Brindabhan A; Mathew M; Davidson R
J Allied Health; 2019; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images.
Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ; Lawton DT
Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):709-23. PubMed ID: 9167162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computerized quantitative evaluation of mammographic accreditation phantom images.
Lee Y; Tsai DY; Shinohara N
Med Phys; 2010 Dec; 37(12):6323-31. PubMed ID: 21302789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
Baydush AH; Floyd CE
Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
Lalji UC; Jeukens CR; Houben I; Nelemans PJ; van Engen RE; van Wylick E; Beets-Tan RG; Wildberger JE; Paulis LE; Lobbes MB
Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2813-20. PubMed ID: 25813015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of lesion positioning on digital magnification mammography performance.
Liu F; Kanal KM; Stewart BK; Lehman CD
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun; 17(6):791-4. PubMed ID: 20399685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A spiculated mass target model for clinical image quality control in digital mammography.
Salomon E; Vanko B; Homolka P; Cockmartin L; Figl M; Clauser P; Unger E; Bosmans H; Marshall N; Hummel J
Br J Radiol; 2024 Feb; 97(1155):560-566. PubMed ID: 38265303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
