566 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24613514)
21. Monochromatic x-rays in digital mammography.
Lawaczeck R; Arkadiev V; Diekmann F; Krumrey M
Invest Radiol; 2005 Jan; 40(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 15597018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. Fully iterative scatter corrected digital breast tomosynthesis using GPU-based fast Monte Carlo simulation and composition ratio update.
Kim K; Lee T; Seong Y; Lee J; Jang KE; Choi J; Choi YW; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Cho S; Ye JC
Med Phys; 2015 Sep; 42(9):5342-55. PubMed ID: 26328983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Experimental phantom lesion detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Lell M; Böhner C; Bautz WA; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2006 Dec; 178(12):1219-23. PubMed ID: 17136645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Optimization of contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Analysis using a cascaded linear system model.
Hu YH; Scaduto DA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 44(1):43-56. PubMed ID: 28044312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. COMPARISON OF SPECTRA AND MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE WITH TUBE VOLTAGES USED IN DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS FROM SIMULATED, METROLOGICAL AND CLINICAL CASES.
da Silveira Gatto LB; Braz D; Pacifico L; Travassos P; Magalhaes LAG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Dec; 192(3):402-412. PubMed ID: 33320943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Monochromatic mammography using scanning multilayer X-ray mirrors.
Windt DL
Rev Sci Instrum; 2018 Aug; 89(8):083702. PubMed ID: 30184654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Threshold in breast compression reduction for full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Afandy AN; Tori MB; Bintalib SO; Soh BLP
Radiography (Lond); 2024 Jan; 30(1):217-225. PubMed ID: 38035436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.
Meyblum E; Gardavaud F; Dao TH; Fournier V; Beaussart P; Pigneur F; Baranes L; Rahmouni A; Luciani A
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2015 Sep; 96(9):931-9. PubMed ID: 25908324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Assessment of the uterine dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Cepeda Martins AR; Di Maria S; Afonso J; Pereira M; Pereira J; Vaz P
Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):333-339. PubMed ID: 34565679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Amorphous In-Ga-Zn-O thin-film transistor active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis.
Zhao C; Kanicki J
Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091902. PubMed ID: 25186389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
