164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25471963)
1. The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.
Cederström B; Fredenberg E
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121903. PubMed ID: 25471963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Diaz O; Young KC
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography with a photon-counting detector.
Fredenberg E; Hemmendorff M; Cederström B; Aslund M; Danielsson M
Med Phys; 2010 May; 37(5):2017-29. PubMed ID: 20527535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cascaded systems analysis of anatomic noise in digital mammography and dual-energy digital mammography.
Tanguay J; Lalonde R; Bjarnason TA; Yang CJ
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215002. PubMed ID: 31470440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Task-based detectability in anatomical background in digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography.
Monnin P; Damet J; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2024 Jan; 69(2):. PubMed ID: 38214048
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Cone-beam volume CT breast imaging: feasibility study.
Chen B; Ning R
Med Phys; 2002 May; 29(5):755-70. PubMed ID: 12033572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images.
Chakraborty DP
Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A method to incorporate the effect of beam quality on image noise in a digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) based computer simulation for optimisation of digital radiography.
Moore CS; Wood TJ; Saunderson JR; Beavis AW
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Sep; 62(18):7379-7393. PubMed ID: 28742062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds.
Reiser I; Nishikawa RM
Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2905-11. PubMed ID: 16964867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Saab-Puong S; Iordache R; Muller S; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081907. PubMed ID: 23927321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computation of realistic virtual phantom images for an objective lesion detectability assessment in digital mammography.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2011 Dec; 33(10):1276-86. PubMed ID: 21741291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Clinical image quality criteria for full field digital mammography: a first practical application.
Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Geniets C; Dekeyzer F; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):265-70. PubMed ID: 18319279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluating noise reduction techniques while considering anatomical noise in dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography.
Allec N; Abbaszadeh S; Scott CC; Karim KS; Lewin JM
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051904. PubMed ID: 23635274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Lesion Detectability and Radiation Dose in Spiral Breast CT With Photon-Counting Detector Technology: A Phantom Study.
Shim S; Saltybaeva N; Berger N; Marcon M; Alkadhi H; Boss A
Invest Radiol; 2020 Aug; 55(8):515-523. PubMed ID: 32209815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
