781 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24002695)
1. 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]
2. Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography.
Young KC; Oduko JM; Bosmans H; Nijs K; Martinez L
Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79(948):981-90. PubMed ID: 17213303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters.
Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H
J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimization of the exposure parameters in digital mammography using contrast-detail metrics.
Rojas LJ; Fausto AMF; Mol AW; Velasco FG; Abreu POS; Henriques G; Furquim TAC
Phys Med; 2017 Oct; 42():13-18. PubMed ID: 29173906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
[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. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.
Tomon JJ; Johnson TE; Swenson KN; Schauer DA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
Muhogora WE; Devetti A; Padovani R; Msaki P; Bonutti F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
