These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23118577)

  • 21. Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography.
    Figl M; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hoffmann R; Kaldarar H; Homolka P; Mostbeck G; Scholz B; Hummel J
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Jan; 58(2):N13-23. PubMed ID: 23257608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Contrast detail phantom comparison on a commercially available unit. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
    Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Borasi G; Botti A; Tassoni D; Sghedoni R; Zuccoli G
    J Digit Imaging; 2011 Feb; 24(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20131074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
    Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
    Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Inconsistencies of Microcalcification Specks in Phantoms Approved by the American College of Radiology for Mammography Accreditation.
    Imamura K; Terada H; Hagiwara A; Higashida Y; Ehara N; Ohuchi N
    Igaku Butsuri; 2000; 20(1):46-55. PubMed ID: 12764251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Automated image quality assessment of mammography phantoms: a systematic review.
    Alawaji Z; Tavakoli Taba S; Rae W
    Acta Radiol; 2023 Mar; 64(3):971-986. PubMed ID: 35866198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. CT head-scan dosimetry in an anthropomorphic phantom and associated measurement of ACR accreditation-phantom imaging metrics under clinically representative scan conditions.
    Brunner CC; Stern SH; Minniti R; Parry MI; Skopec M; Chakrabarti K
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081917. PubMed ID: 23927331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
    Alkhalifah K; Brindabhan A; Alsaeed R
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Breast phantoms for 2D digital mammography with realistic anatomical structures and attenuation characteristics based on clinical images using 3D printing.
    Schopphoven S; Cavael P; Bock K; Fiebich M; Mäder U
    Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215005. PubMed ID: 31469105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms.
    Schueller G; Kaindl E; Matzek WK; Semturs F; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Helbich TH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jan; 186(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 16357374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Objective measurements of image quality in synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging versus digital mammography.
    Ruiz-Gonzalez Y; Perez-Diaz M; Martínez-Aguila D; Diaz-Barreto M; Fleitas I; Mora-Machado R; Rigon L; Tromba G; Bregant P
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2016 Feb; 11(2):181-8. PubMed ID: 26092659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Mammographic Phantoms Frequently Used to Determine Image Quality: A Comparative Study.
    AlKhalifah K; Brindabhan A
    J Allied Health; 2017; 46(4):239-242. PubMed ID: 29202159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Assessment of mammography quality in Istanbul.
    Gürdemir B; Arıbal E
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2012; 18(5):468-72. PubMed ID: 22801869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
    James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
    Kalathaki M; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Tritakis P; Kalyvas N; Simantirakis G; Manousaridis G; Kaisas I; Kamenopoulou V
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of Mass Size Measurements: Synthesized Mammography Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography.
    Şendur HN; Cerit MN; Gültekin S; Cindil E; Kılıç P
    Acad Radiol; 2020 Jun; 27(6):766-773. PubMed ID: 31537507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Development and preclinical evaluation of a patient-specific high energy x-ray phase sensitive breast tomosynthesis system.
    Ghani MU; Wu X; Fajardo LL; Jing Z; Wong MD; Zheng B; Omoumi F; Li Y; Yan A; Jenkins P; Hillis SL; Linstroth L; Liu H
    Med Phys; 2021 May; 48(5):2511-2520. PubMed ID: 33523479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.