155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24895593)
1. Figure of image quality and information capacity in digital mammography.
Michail CM; Kalyvas NE; Valais IG; Fudos IP; Fountos GP; Dimitropoulos N; Koulouras G; Kandris D; Samarakou M; Kandarakis IS
Biomed Res Int; 2014; 2014():634856. PubMed ID: 24895593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Investigation of the performance of digital mammographic X-ray equipment: determination of noise equivalent quanta (NEQQC) and detective quantum efficiency (DQEQC) compared with the automated analysis of CDMAM test images with CDCOM and CDIC programs.
Loos C; Buhr H; Blendl C
Rofo; 2013 Jul; 185(7):635-43. PubMed ID: 23801376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In-plane image quality and NPWE detectability index in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Monnin P; Verdun FR; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2020 May; 65(9):095013. PubMed ID: 32191923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Should processed or raw image data be used in mammographic image quality analyses? A comparative study of three full-field digital mammography systems.
Borg M; Badr I; Royle G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jan; 163(1):102-17. PubMed ID: 24692583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Characterization of imaging performance in differential phase contrast CT compared with the conventional CT: spectrum of noise equivalent quanta NEQ(k).
Tang X; Yang Y; Tang S
Med Phys; 2012 Jul; 39(7):4467-82. PubMed ID: 22830779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control.
Carton AK; Vandenbroucke D; Struye L; Maidment AD; Kao YH; Albert M; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1684-95. PubMed ID: 16013727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of signal to noise ratios from spatial and frequency domain formulations of nonprewhitening model observers in digital mammography.
Sisini F; Zanca F; Marshall NW; Taibi A; Cardarelli P; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2012 Sep; 39(9):5652-63. PubMed ID: 22957631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography.
Uematsu T
Jpn J Radiol; 2009 May; 27(4):168-75. PubMed ID: 19499307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comprehensive assessment of image quality in synthetic and digital mammography: a quantitative comparison.
Barca P; Lamastra R; Aringhieri G; Tucciariello RM; Traino A; Fantacci ME
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2019 Dec; 42(4):1141-1152. PubMed ID: 31728938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Reader variability in breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms: the effect of image postprocessing on relative and absolute measures.
Keller BM; Nathan DL; Gavenonis SC; Chen J; Conant EF; Kontos D
Acad Radiol; 2013 May; 20(5):560-8. PubMed ID: 23465381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Characteristic performance evaluation of a photon counting Si strip detector for low dose spectral breast CT imaging.
Cho HM; Barber WC; Ding H; Iwanczyk JS; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091903. PubMed ID: 25186390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation.
Keller BM; Nathan DL; Wang Y; Zheng Y; Gee JC; Conant EF; Kontos D
Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4903-17. PubMed ID: 22894417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. [Results of an automatic evaluation of test images according to PAS 1054 and IEC 6220-1-2 on different types of digital mammographic units].
Blendl C; Schreiber AC; Buhr H
Rofo; 2009 Oct; 181(10):979-88. PubMed ID: 19676013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The modulation transfer function and signal-to-noise ratio of different digital filters: a technical approach.
Brüllmann DD; d'Hoedt B
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 May; 40(4):222-9. PubMed ID: 21493878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. High-resolution imager for digital mammography: physical characterization of a prototype sensor.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Onishi SK
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Sep; 50(17):3957-69. PubMed ID: 16177523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images.
Saunders RS; Samei E
Med Phys; 2003 Nov; 30(11):3006-17. PubMed ID: 14655948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
