89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23635274)
21. Search for novel contrast materials in dual-energy x-ray breast imaging using theoretical modeling of contrast-to-noise ratio.
Karunamuni R; Maidment AD
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Aug; 59(15):4311-24. PubMed ID: 25029534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Theoretical optimization of dual-energy x-ray imaging with application to mammography.
Johns PC; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 1985; 12(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 4010633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Dual-energy mammography: initial experimental results.
Johns PC; Drost DJ; Yaffe MJ; Fenster A
Med Phys; 1985; 12(3):297-304. PubMed ID: 4010634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Analytical optimization of digital subtraction mammography with contrast medium using a commercial unit.
Rosado-Méndez I; Palma BA; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5544-57. PubMed ID: 19175112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A scatter correction method for dual-energy digital mammography: Monte Carlo simulation.
Ai K; Gao Y; Yu G
J Xray Sci Technol; 2014; 22(5):653-71. PubMed ID: 25265925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Single-layer and dual-layer contrast-enhanced mammography using amorphous selenium flat panel detectors.
Allec N; Abbaszadeh S; Karim KS
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Sep; 56(18):5903-23. PubMed ID: 21852727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Evaluation of the minimum iodine concentration for contrast-enhanced subtraction mammography.
Baldelli P; Bravin A; Di Maggio C; Gennaro G; Sarnelli A; Taibi A; Gambaccini M
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Sep; 51(17):4233-51. PubMed ID: 16912379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Maximizing Iodine Contrast-to-Noise Ratios in Abdominal CT Imaging through Use of Energy Domain Noise Reduction and Virtual Monoenergetic Dual-Energy CT.
Leng S; Yu L; Fletcher JG; McCollough CH
Radiology; 2015 Aug; 276(2):562-70. PubMed ID: 25860839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Optimization of dual-energy imaging systems using generalized NEQ and imaging task.
Richard S; Siewerdsen JH
Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):127-39. PubMed ID: 17278498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Assessment of an advanced image-based technique to calculate virtual monoenergetic computed tomographic images from a dual-energy examination to improve contrast-to-noise ratio in examinations using iodinated contrast media.
Grant KL; Flohr TG; Krauss B; Sedlmair M; Thomas C; Schmidt B
Invest Radiol; 2014 Sep; 49(9):586-92. PubMed ID: 24710203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Dual-energy, standard and low-kVp contrast-enhanced CT-cholangiography: a comparative analysis of image quality and radiation exposure.
Stiller W; Schwarzwaelder CB; Sommer CM; Veloza S; Radeleff BA; Kauczor HU
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jul; 81(7):1405-12. PubMed ID: 21458939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Improvement of signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios in dual-screen computed radiography.
Shaw CC; Wang TP; Breitenstein DS; Gur D
Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1293-302. PubMed ID: 9284253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Wavelet-based noise-model driven denoising algorithm for differential phase contrast mammography.
Arboleda C; Wang Z; Stampanoni M
Opt Express; 2013 May; 21(9):10572-89. PubMed ID: 23669913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
Segui JA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Characterization of a constrained paired-view technique in iterative reconstruction for breast tomosynthesis.
Wu G; Mainprize JG; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101901. PubMed ID: 24089903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Generalized DQE analysis of radiographic and dual-energy imaging using flat-panel detectors.
Richard S; Siewerdsen JH; Jaffray DA; Moseley DJ; Bakhtiar B
Med Phys; 2005 May; 32(5):1397-413. PubMed ID: 15984691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
