143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23801376)
1. Investigation of the performance of digital mammographic X-ray equipment: determination of noise equivalent quanta (NEQQC) and detective quantum efficiency (DQEQC) compared with the automated analysis of CDMAM test images with CDCOM and CDIC programs.
Loos C; Buhr H; Blendl C
Rofo; 2013 Jul; 185(7):635-43. PubMed ID: 23801376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Comparison of two automatic evaluation methods on Images of the CDMAM test phantom].
Blendl C; Loos C; Eiben B
Rofo; 2009 Jul; 181(7):637-43. PubMed ID: 19513964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Results of an automatic evaluation of test images according to PAS 1054 and IEC 6220-1-2 on different types of digital mammographic units].
Blendl C; Schreiber AC; Buhr H
Rofo; 2009 Oct; 181(10):979-88. PubMed ID: 19676013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Evaluation of automated CDMAM readings for non-standard CDMAM imaging conditions: grid-less acquisitions and scatter correction.
Binst J; Sterckx B; Bemelmans F; Cockmartin L; Van Peteghem N; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):350-3. PubMed ID: 25821214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Conversion factors between human and automatic readouts of CDMAM phantom images of CR mammography systems.
Figl M; Homolka P; Osanna-Elliott A; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hummel J
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 61(18):N514-N521. PubMed ID: 27580001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors.
Ghetti C; Borrini A; Ortenzia O; Rossi R; Ordóñez PL
Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 18383665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography.
Urbanczyk H; McDonagh E; Marshall NW; Castellano I
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1987-2003. PubMed ID: 22429938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Quantitative image quality measurements of a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2013 Dec; 185(12):1188-94. PubMed ID: 23888475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Study of digital mammographic equipments by phantom image quality.
Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():1994-6. PubMed ID: 17946081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Campanini R; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Danielli C; Angelini L; Maggi S
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4198-209. PubMed ID: 17153399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
