157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26105023)
1. Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.
Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
Eur Radiol; 2016 Mar; 26(3):874-83. PubMed ID: 26105023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.
Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Cooke J; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
Phys Med; 2016 Apr; 32(4):568-74. PubMed ID: 27061872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The effect of image processing on the detection of cancers in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Halling-Brown MD; Mackenzie A; Chakraborty DP; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Aug; 203(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 25055275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
Marshall NW; Lemmens K; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
Rong XJ; Shaw CC; Johnston DA; Lemacks MR; Liu X; Whitman GJ; Dryden MJ; Stephens TW; Thompson SK; Krugh KT; Lai CJ
Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2052-61. PubMed ID: 12349926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies.
Ruschin M; Timberg P; Båth M; Hemdal B; Svahn T; Saunders RS; Samei E; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Chakrabort DP; Tingber A
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):400-7. PubMed ID: 17388156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Image processing can cause some malignant soft-tissue lesions to be missed in digital mammography images.
Warren LM; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Dance DR; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Wilkinson L; McAvinchey R; Young KC
Clin Radiol; 2017 Sep; 72(9):799.e1-799.e8. PubMed ID: 28457521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Validation of simulation of calcifications for observer studies in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Green FH; Shrestha L; Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Young KC
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Aug; 58(16):N217-28. PubMed ID: 23880732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [DR (a-Se) versus CR (DLR)--is an improvement of the accuracy possible? A retrospective histologic analysis (n = 100)].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Lell M; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Dassel MS; Bautz W
Rontgenpraxis; 2007; 56(4):129-35. PubMed ID: 17390952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.
Spangler ML; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Abrams G; Ganott MA; Hakim C; Perrin R; Chough DM; Shah R; Gur D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):320-4. PubMed ID: 21257882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. New CR system with pixel size of 50 microm for digital mammography: physical imaging properties and detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Ideguchi T; Higashida Y; Kawaji Y; Sasaki M; Zaizen M; Shibayama R; Nakamura Y; Koyanagi K; Ikeda H; Ohki M; Toyofuku F; Muranaka T
Radiat Med; 2004; 22(4):218-24. PubMed ID: 15468941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [First experiments for the detection of simulated mammographic lesions: digital full field mammography with a new detector with a double plate of pure selenium].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Adamietz B; Lell M; Anders K; Uder M
Radiologe; 2011 Feb; 51(2):130-4. PubMed ID: 21069512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Digital mammography with high-resolution storage plates (CR) versus full-field digital mammography (CCD) (DR) for microcalcifications and focal lesions -- a retrospective clinical histologic analysis (n = 102)].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Lell M; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Dassel MS; Bautz W
Rofo; 2005 Jan; 177(1):67-71. PubMed ID: 15657822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Svahn T; Hemdal B; Ruschin M; Chakraborty DP; Andersson I; Tingberg A; Mattsson S
Br J Radiol; 2007 Jul; 80(955):557-62. PubMed ID: 17704316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography.
Bosmans H; De Hauwere A; Lemmens K; Zanca F; Thierens H; Van Ongeval C; Van Herck K; Van Steen A; Martens P; Bleyen L; Vande Putte G; Kellen E; Mortier G; Van Limbergen E
Eur Radiol; 2013 Oct; 23(10):2891-8. PubMed ID: 23689308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of the digitalisation of mammography on performance parameters and breast dose in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.
Timmermans L; De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Bosmans H; Lemmens K; Bleyen L; Van Limbergen E; Martens P; Van Steen A; Mortier G; Van Herck K; Thierens H
Eur Radiol; 2014 Aug; 24(8):1808-19. PubMed ID: 24816932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
