164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25471963)
21. Multiscale bilateral filtering for improving image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM; Samala RK
Med Phys; 2015 Jan; 42(1):182-95. PubMed ID: 25563259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A theoretical study on phase-contrast mammography with Thomson-scattering x-ray sources.
De Caro L; Giannini C; Bellotti R; Tangaro S
Med Phys; 2009 Oct; 36(10):4644-53. PubMed ID: 19928096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Investigation of energy weighting using an energy discriminating photon counting detector for breast CT.
Kalluri KS; Mahd M; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081923. PubMed ID: 23927337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.
Samei E; Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):396-404. PubMed ID: 17356178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Photon counting computed tomography: concept and initial results.
Shikhaliev PM; Xu T; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):427-36. PubMed ID: 15789589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Investigating the feasibility of classifying breast microcalcifications using photon-counting spectral mammography: A simulation study.
Ghammraoui B; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2304-2311. PubMed ID: 28332199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Validation of a digital mammographic unit model for an objective and highly automated clinical image quality assessment.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2013 Aug; 35(8):1089-96; discussion 1089. PubMed ID: 23207102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Objective assessment of image quality in conventional and digital mammography taking into account dynamic range.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):380-2. PubMed ID: 15933141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Simulation of mammographic lesions.
Saunders R; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Jul; 13(7):860-70. PubMed ID: 16777560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].
Diekmann S; Bick U; von Heyden H; Diekmann F
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis].
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):1052-6. PubMed ID: 11199434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems.
Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Oct; 59(19):5741-61. PubMed ID: 25198143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Observer performance and dose efficiency of mammographic scanning equalization radiography.
Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB
Med Phys; 1993; 20(5):1517-25. PubMed ID: 8289736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
