138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24207013)
1. A comparison of calibration data from full field digital mammography units for breast density measurements.
Fowler EE; Lu B; Heine JJ
Biomed Eng Online; 2013 Nov; 12():114. PubMed ID: 24207013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Calibrated breast density methods for full field digital mammography: a system for serial quality control and inter-system generalization.
Lu B; Smallwood AM; Sellers TA; Drukteinis JS; Heine JJ; Fowler EE
Med Phys; 2015 Feb; 42(2):623-36. PubMed ID: 25652480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effective x-ray attenuation coefficient measurements from two full field digital mammography systems for data calibration applications.
Heine JJ; Thomas JA
Biomed Eng Online; 2008 Mar; 7():13. PubMed ID: 18373863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Technical challenges in generalizing calibration techniques for breast density measurements.
Fowler EEE; Smallwood AM; Khan NZ; Kilpatrick K; Sellers TA; Heine J
Med Phys; 2019 Feb; 46(2):679-688. PubMed ID: 30525207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Cumulative sum quality control for calibrated breast density measurements.
Heine JJ; Cao K; Beam C
Med Phys; 2009 Dec; 36(12):5380-90. PubMed ID: 20095250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Contrast detail phantom comparison on a commercially available unit. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Borasi G; Botti A; Tassoni D; Sghedoni R; Zuccoli G
J Digit Imaging; 2011 Feb; 24(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20131074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
Chakraborty DP
J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast phantoms for 2D digital mammography with realistic anatomical structures and attenuation characteristics based on clinical images using 3D printing.
Schopphoven S; Cavael P; Bock K; Fiebich M; Mäder U
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215005. PubMed ID: 31469105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Automatic Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density Using Artificial Neural Network-Based Calibration of Full-Field Digital Mammography: Feasibility on Japanese Women With and Without Breast Cancer.
Wang J; Kato F; Yamashita H; Baba M; Cui Y; Li R; Oyama-Manabe N; Shirato H
J Digit Imaging; 2017 Apr; 30(2):215-227. PubMed ID: 27832519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM.
Al Khalifah K; Davidson R; Zhou A
Radiol Phys Technol; 2020 Mar; 13(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 31749130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography.
Kaufhold J; Thomas JA; Eberhard JW; Galbo CE; Trotter DE
Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1867-80. PubMed ID: 12201434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.
Tagliafico AS; Tagliafico G; Cavagnetto F; Calabrese M; Houssami N
Br J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 86(1031):20130255. PubMed ID: 24029631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
