139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24307930)
41. Maximizing microcalcification detectability in low-dose dedicated cone-beam breast CT: parallel cascades-based theoretical analysis.
Larsen T; Tseng HW; Trinate R; Fu Z; Alan Chiang JT; Karellas A; Vedantham S
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2024 May; 11(3):033501. PubMed ID: 38756437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Characteristic image quality of a third generation dual-source MDCT scanner: Noise, resolution, and detectability.
Solomon J; Wilson J; Samei E
Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4941-53. PubMed ID: 26233220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Quantitative breast tomosynthesis: from detectability to estimability.
Richard S; Samei E
Med Phys; 2010 Dec; 37(12):6157-65. PubMed ID: 21302772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. A data-efficient method for local noise power spectrum (NPS) estimation in FDK-reconstructed 3D cone-beam CT.
Zeng R; Torkaman M; Ning H; Zhuge Y; Miller R; Myers KJ
Med Phys; 2019 Apr; 46(4):1634-1647. PubMed ID: 30723944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Technical assessment of 2D and 3D imaging performance of an IGZO-based flat-panel X-ray detector.
Sheth NM; Uneri A; Helm PA; Zbijewski W; Siewerdsen JH
Med Phys; 2022 May; 49(5):3053-3066. PubMed ID: 35363391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Accurate and efficient measurement of channelized Hotelling observer-based low-contrast detectability on the ACR CT accreditation phantom.
Fan M; Thayib T; McCollough C; Yu L
Med Phys; 2023 Feb; 50(2):737-749. PubMed ID: 36273393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Noise, sampling, and the number of projections in cone-beam CT with a flat-panel detector.
Zhao Z; Gang GJ; Siewerdsen JH
Med Phys; 2014 Jun; 41(6):061909. PubMed ID: 24877820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Task-based detectability in CT image reconstruction by filtered backprojection and penalized likelihood estimation.
Gang GJ; Stayman JW; Zbijewski W; Siewerdsen JH
Med Phys; 2014 Aug; 41(8):081902. PubMed ID: 25086533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Human observer performance on in-plane digital breast tomosynthesis images: Effects of reconstruction filters and data acquisition angles on signal detection.
Lee C; Han M; Baek J
PLoS One; 2020; 15(3):e0229915. PubMed ID: 32163472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Ideal-observer detectability in photon-counting differential phase-contrast imaging using a linear-systems approach.
Fredenberg E; Danielsson M; Stayman JW; Siewerdsen JH; Aslund M
Med Phys; 2012 Sep; 39(9):5317-35. PubMed ID: 22957600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Low contrast detectability performance of model observers based on CT phantom images: kVp influence.
Hernandez-Giron I; Calzado A; Geleijns J; Joemai RM; Veldkamp WJ
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):798-807. PubMed ID: 25979210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Cone-beam CT dose and imaging performance evaluation with a modular, multipurpose phantom.
Siewerdsen JH; Uneri A; Hernandez AM; Burkett GW; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2020 Feb; 47(2):467-479. PubMed ID: 31808950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. High-resolution extremity cone-beam CT with a CMOS detector: Task-based optimization of scintillator thickness.
Cao Q; Brehler M; Sisniega A; Stayman JW; Yorkston J; Siewerdsen JH; Zbijewski W
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2017 Mar; 10132():. PubMed ID: 28989220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Generalized DQE analysis of radiographic and dual-energy imaging using flat-panel detectors.
Richard S; Siewerdsen JH; Jaffray DA; Moseley DJ; Bakhtiar B
Med Phys; 2005 May; 32(5):1397-413. PubMed ID: 15984691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. A task-based quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Nov; 59(21):6621-35. PubMed ID: 25325670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Toward a comparison and an optimization of CT protocols using new metrics of dose and image quality part I: prediction of human observers using a model observer for detection and discrimination tasks in low-dose CT images in various scanning conditions.
Othman N; Simon AC; Montagu T; Berteloot L; Grévent D; Habib Geryes B; Benkreira M; Bigand E; Capdeville S; Desrousseaux J; Farman B; Garnier E; Gempp S; Nigoul JM; Nomikossoff N; Vincent M
Phys Med Biol; 2021 May; 66(11):. PubMed ID: 33887706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data.
Young S; Bakic PR; Myers KJ; Jennings RJ; Park S
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051914. PubMed ID: 23635284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Image quality and localization accuracy in C-arm tomosynthesis-guided head and neck surgery.
Bachar G; Siewerdsen JH; Daly MJ; Jaffray DA; Irish JC
Med Phys; 2007 Dec; 34(12):4664-77. PubMed ID: 18196794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Cone-beam imaging with tilted rotation axis: Method and performance evaluation.
Zhao C; Herbst M; Vogt S; Ritschl L; Kappler S; Siewerdsen JH; Zbijewski W
Med Phys; 2020 Aug; 47(8):3305-3320. PubMed ID: 32340069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Cascaded systems analysis of shift-variant image quality in slit-scanning breast tomosynthesis.
Berggren K; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Fredenberg E
Med Phys; 2018 Oct; 45(10):4392-4401. PubMed ID: 30091470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
