89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23635274)
1. Evaluating noise reduction techniques while considering anatomical noise in dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography.
Allec N; Abbaszadeh S; Scott CC; Karim KS; Lewin JM
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051904. PubMed ID: 23635274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Optimization of contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Analysis using a cascaded linear system model.
Hu YH; Scaduto DA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 44(1):43-56. PubMed ID: 28044312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Saab-Puong S; Iordache R; Muller S; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081907. PubMed ID: 23927321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Including the effect of motion artifacts in noise and performance analysis of dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography.
Allec N; Abbaszadeh S; Scott CC; Lewin JM; Karim KS
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Dec; 57(24):8405-25. PubMed ID: 23202244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.
Cederström B; Fredenberg E
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121903. PubMed ID: 25471963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cascaded systems analysis of anatomic noise in digital mammography and dual-energy digital mammography.
Tanguay J; Lalonde R; Bjarnason TA; Yang CJ
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215002. PubMed ID: 31470440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography with a photon-counting detector.
Fredenberg E; Hemmendorff M; Cederström B; Aslund M; Danielsson M
Med Phys; 2010 May; 37(5):2017-29. PubMed ID: 20527535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Cascaded systems analysis of noise reduction algorithms in dual-energy imaging.
Richard S; Siewerdsen JH
Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):586-601. PubMed ID: 18383680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging: noise reduction techniques.
Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Oct; 53(19):5421-43. PubMed ID: 18765887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Optimization of a flat-panel based real time dual-energy system for cardiac imaging.
Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2006 Jun; 33(6):1562-8. PubMed ID: 16872063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of amorphous selenium detector thickness on dual-energy digital breast imaging.
Hu YH; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2014 Nov; 41(11):111904. PubMed ID: 25370637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Development of silica-encapsulated silver nanoparticles as contrast agents intended for dual-energy mammography.
Karunamuni R; Naha PC; Lau KC; Al-Zaki A; Popov AV; Delikatny EJ; Tsourkas A; Cormode DP; Maidment AD
Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3301-9. PubMed ID: 26910906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Dual-energy approach to contrast-enhanced mammography using the balanced filter method: spectral optimization and preliminary phantom measurement.
Saito M
Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4236-46. PubMed ID: 18072488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A dual-energy subtraction technique for microcalcification imaging in digital mammography--a signal-to-noise analysis.
Lemacks MR; Kappadath SC; Shaw CC; Liu X; Whitman GJ
Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1739-51. PubMed ID: 12201421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Dual-energy digital mammography utilizing stimulated phosphor computed radiography.
Brettle DS; Cowen AR
Phys Med Biol; 1994 Nov; 39(11):1989-2004. PubMed ID: 15560006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of signal to noise ratios from spatial and frequency domain formulations of nonprewhitening model observers in digital mammography.
Sisini F; Zanca F; Marshall NW; Taibi A; Cardarelli P; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2012 Sep; 39(9):5652-63. PubMed ID: 22957631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
