143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23718617)
1. Workload and transmission data for the installation of a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Li X; Zhang D; Liu B
Med Phys; 2013 Jun; 40(6):063901. PubMed ID: 23718617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Radiation shielding calculation for digital breast tomosynthesis rooms with an updated workload survey.
Yang K; Schultz TJ; Li X; Liu B
J Radiol Prot; 2017 Mar; 37(1):230-246. PubMed ID: 28141582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Scatter radiation intensities around a clinical digital breast tomosynthesis unit and the impact on radiation shielding considerations.
Yang K; Li X; Liu B
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1096-110. PubMed ID: 26936697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.
Paulis LE; Lobbes MB; Lalji UC; Gelissen N; Bouwman RW; Wildberger JE; Jeukens CR
Invest Radiol; 2015 Oct; 50(10):679-85. PubMed ID: 26011823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.
Feng SS; Sechopoulos I
Radiology; 2012 Apr; 263(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22332070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis.
Chen SC; Carton AK; Albert M; Conant EF; Schnall MD; Maidment AD
Acad Radiol; 2007 Feb; 14(2):229-38. PubMed ID: 17236995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Eben EB; Jebsen IN; Krager M; Haakenaasen U; Ekseth U; Izadi M; Hofvind S; Gullien R
Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):655-63. PubMed ID: 24484063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 'In vivo' average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.
Cavagnetto F; Taccini G; Rosasco R; Bampi R; Calabrese M; Tagliafico A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Nov; 157(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 23734057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
[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. COMPARISON OF SPECTRA AND MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE WITH TUBE VOLTAGES USED IN DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS FROM SIMULATED, METROLOGICAL AND CLINICAL CASES.
da Silveira Gatto LB; Braz D; Pacifico L; Travassos P; Magalhaes LAG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Dec; 192(3):402-412. PubMed ID: 33320943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.
Skaane P; Gullien R; Bjørndal H; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Jahr G; Jebsen IN; Krager M
Acta Radiol; 2012 Jun; 53(5):524-9. PubMed ID: 22593120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study.
Whelehan P; Heywang-Köbrunner SH; Vinnicombe SJ; Hacker A; Jänsch A; Hapca A; Gray R; Jenkin M; Lowry K; Oeppen R; Reilly M; Stahnke M; Evans A
Clin Radiol; 2017 Jan; 72(1):95.e9-95.e15. PubMed ID: 27737763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS WITH FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND CONTRAST-ENHANCED SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
Avramova-Cholakova S; Kulama E; Daskalov S; Loveland J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 Dec; 197(3-4):212-229. PubMed ID: 34977945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Eye radiation dose from breast cancer screening using full field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
M Ali RMK; Hogg P
Radiography (Lond); 2024 Jan; 30(1):141-144. PubMed ID: 38035424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting.
Brandt KR; Craig DA; Hoskins TL; Henrichsen TL; Bendel EC; Brandt SR; Mandrekar J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Feb; 200(2):291-8. PubMed ID: 23345348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Determination of backscatter factors in breast tomosynthesis using MCNPX simulations and measurements.
Baptista M; Di Maria S; Figueira C; Orvalho L; Vaz P
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):325-30. PubMed ID: 25836681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
