249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23635284)
1. A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data.
Young S; Bakic PR; Myers KJ; Jennings RJ; Park S
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051914. PubMed ID: 23635284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Optimized signal of calcifications in wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis: a virtual imaging trial.
Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Lueck F; Marshall N; Keupers M; Nanke R; Kappler S; Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2024 Mar; ():. PubMed ID: 38546790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Case for Wide-Angle Breast Tomosynthesis.
Samei E; Thompson J; Richard S; Bowsher J
Acad Radiol; 2015 Jul; 22(7):860-9. PubMed ID: 25920335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A deep learning approach to estimate x-ray scatter in digital breast tomosynthesis: From phantom models to clinical applications.
Pinto MC; Mauter F; Michielsen K; Biniazan R; Kappler S; Sechopoulos I
Med Phys; 2023 Aug; 50(8):4744-4757. PubMed ID: 37394837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Image quality of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: effects of projection-view distributions.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Goodsitt M; Carson PL; Hadjiiski L; Schmitz A; Eberhard JW; Claus BE
Med Phys; 2011 Oct; 38(10):5703-12. PubMed ID: 21992385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system.
Chawla AS; Samei E; Saunders RS; Lo JY; Baker JA
Med Phys; 2008 Apr; 35(4):1337-45. PubMed ID: 18491528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Task-based performance analysis of FBP, SART and ML for digital breast tomosynthesis using signal CNR and Channelised Hotelling Observers.
Van de Sompel D; Brady SM; Boone J
Med Image Anal; 2011 Feb; 15(1):53-70. PubMed ID: 20713313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Das M; Gifford HC; O'Connor JM; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2009 Jun; 36(6):1976-84. PubMed ID: 19610286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Dependency of image quality on system configuration parameters in a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Tucker AW; Lu J; Zhou O
Med Phys; 2013 Mar; 40(3):031917. PubMed ID: 23464332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Segmented separable footprint projector for digital breast tomosynthesis and its application for subpixel reconstruction.
Zheng J; Fessler JA; Chan HP
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):986-1001. PubMed ID: 28058719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Monte Carlo simulation for the estimation of the glandular breast dose for a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Rodrigues L; Magalhaes LA; Braz D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Dec; 167(4):576-83. PubMed ID: 25480841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Hu YH; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2011 May; 38(5):2455-66. PubMed ID: 21776781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Model observer for assessing digital breast tomosynthesis for multi-lesion detection in the presence of anatomical noise.
Wen G; Markey MK; Haygood TM; Park S
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Feb; 63(4):045017. PubMed ID: 29376838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In-plane image quality and NPWE detectability index in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Monnin P; Verdun FR; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2020 May; 65(9):095013. PubMed ID: 32191923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Zelakiewicz S; Schmitz A; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Nees AV; Neal CH; Carson P; Lu Y; Hadjiiski L; Wei J
Radiology; 2014 Dec; 273(3):675-85. PubMed ID: 25007048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials.
Mackenzie A; Marshall NW; Hadjipanteli A; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(6):2376-2397. PubMed ID: 28151431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Task-based detectability in anatomical background in digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography.
Monnin P; Damet J; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2024 Jan; 69(2):. PubMed ID: 38214048
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Implementation and evaluation of an expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm for gamma emission breast tomosynthesis.
Gong Z; Klanian K; Patel T; Sullivan O; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2012 Dec; 39(12):7580-92. PubMed ID: 23231306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A novel pre-processing technique for improving image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Kim H; Lee T; Hong J; Sabir S; Lee JR; Choi YW; Kim HH; Chae EY; Cho S
Med Phys; 2017 Feb; 44(2):417-425. PubMed ID: 28032909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
