234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25735660)
21. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography.
Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Karssemeijer N
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1712-8. PubMed ID: 12906188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Campanini R; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Danielli C; Angelini L; Maggi S
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4198-209. PubMed ID: 17153399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS WITH FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND CONTRAST-ENHANCED SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
Avramova-Cholakova S; Kulama E; Daskalov S; Loveland J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 Dec; 197(3-4):212-229. PubMed ID: 34977945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Simulation of images of CDMAM phantom and the estimation of measurement uncertainties of threshold gold thickness.
Mackenzie A; Eales TD; Dunn HL; Yip Braidley M; Dance DR; Young KC
Phys Med; 2017 Jul; 39():137-146. PubMed ID: 28647448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Study of digital mammographic equipments by phantom image quality.
Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():1994-6. PubMed ID: 17946081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [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]
32. Optimization of the exposure parameters in digital mammography using contrast-detail metrics.
Rojas LJ; Fausto AMF; Mol AW; Velasco FG; Abreu POS; Henriques G; Furquim TAC
Phys Med; 2017 Oct; 42():13-18. PubMed ID: 29173906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Analysis of the threshold image contrast obtained with the CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 4.0 phantoms.
Biegała M; Jakubowska T; Stępińska A; Woźniak P
Phys Eng Sci Med; 2023 Jun; 46(2):897-902. PubMed ID: 37185808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
Chakraborty DP
J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [Full-field digital mammography with amorphous silicon-based flat- panel detector: physical imaging characteristics and signal detection].
Ideguchi T; Higashida Y; Himuro K; Ohki M; Nakamura S; Yoshida A; Takagi R; Hatano H; Kuwahara R; Toyonaga M; Tanaka I; Toyofuku F
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Mar; 60(3):399-405. PubMed ID: 15131510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Determination of contrast-detail curves in mammography image quality assessment by a parametric model observer.
Kretz T; Anton M; Schaeffter T; Elster C
Phys Med; 2019 Jun; 62():120-128. PubMed ID: 31153391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
