137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24297999)
1. Optimization of configuration parameters in a newly developed digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Park HS; Kim YS; Kim HJ; Choi YW; Choi JG
J Radiat Res; 2014 May; 55(3):589-99. PubMed ID: 24297999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Optimization of the key imaging parameters for detection of microcalcifications in a newly developed digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Park HS; Kim YS; Kim HJ; Choi JG; Choi YW
Clin Imaging; 2013; 37(6):993-9. PubMed ID: 23891226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast.
Sechopoulos I; Ghetti C
Med Phys; 2009 Apr; 36(4):1199-207. PubMed ID: 19472626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for C-arm mammography tomosynthesis.
Rakowski JT; Dennis MJ
Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):3018-32. PubMed ID: 16964880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comprehensive assessment of the slice sensitivity profiles in breast tomosynthesis and breast CT.
Nosratieh A; Yang K; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2012 Dec; 39(12):7254-61. PubMed ID: 23231276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis.
Zhang Y; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Wei J; Goodsitt MM; Hadjiiski LM; Ge J; Zhou C
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3781-95. PubMed ID: 17089843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis.
Zhao B; Zhou J; Hu YH; Mertelmeier T; Ludwig J; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2009 Jan; 36(1):240-51. PubMed ID: 19235392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Selective-diffusion regularization for enhancement of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):6003-14. PubMed ID: 21158312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Development of a chest digital tomosynthesis R/F system and implementation of low-dose GPU-accelerated compressed sensing (CS) image reconstruction.
Choi S; Lee H; Lee D; Choi S; Lee CL; Kwon W; Shin J; Seo CW; Kim HJ
Med Phys; 2018 May; 45(5):1871-1888. PubMed ID: 29500855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images.
Vecchio S; Albanese A; Vignoli P; Taibi A
Eur Radiol; 2011 Jun; 21(6):1207-13. PubMed ID: 21193910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Artifact reduction methods for truncated projections in iterative breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
Zhang Y; Chan HP; Sahiner B; Wei J; Zhou C; Hadjiiski LM
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2009; 33(3):426-35. PubMed ID: 19478639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.
Shafer CM; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):1004-16. PubMed ID: 20384236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A diffusion-based truncated projection artifact reduction method for iterative digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Feb; 58(3):569-87. PubMed ID: 23318346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Characterization of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of machine learning in projection views and reconstructed slices.
Chan HP; Wu YT; Sahiner B; Wei J; Helvie MA; Zhang Y; Moore RH; Kopans DB; Hadjiiski L; Way T
Med Phys; 2010 Jul; 37(7):3576-86. PubMed ID: 20831065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
