466 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26127035)
21. Dynamic relaxation in algebraic reconstruction technique (ART) for breast tomosynthesis imaging.
Oliveira N; Mota AM; Matela N; Janeiro L; Almeida P
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2016 Aug; 132():189-96. PubMed ID: 27282238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Segmented separable footprint projector for digital breast tomosynthesis and its application for subpixel reconstruction.
Zheng J; Fessler JA; Chan HP
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):986-1001. PubMed ID: 28058719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. An iterative tomosynthesis reconstruction using total variation combined with non-local means filtering.
Ertas M; Yildirim I; Kamasak M; Akan A
Biomed Eng Online; 2014 May; 13():65. PubMed ID: 24886602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Contrast detail phantom comparison on a commercially available unit. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Borasi G; Botti A; Tassoni D; Sghedoni R; Zuccoli G
J Digit Imaging; 2011 Feb; 24(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20131074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Assessment of imaging performance of digital breast tomosynthesis based on systematic simulation].
Deng Y; Zhu M; Li S; Wang Y; Gao Y; Ma J
Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao; 2021 Jun; 41(6):898-908. PubMed ID: 34238743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison study of reconstruction algorithms for prototype digital breast tomosynthesis using various breast phantoms.
Kim YS; Park HS; Lee HH; Choi YW; Choi JG; Kim HH; Kim HJ
Radiol Med; 2016 Feb; 121(2):81-92. PubMed ID: 26383027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Improved digital breast tomosynthesis images using automated ultrasound.
Zhang X; Yuan J; Du S; Kripfgans OD; Wang X; Carson PL; Liu X
Med Phys; 2014 Jun; 41(6):061911. PubMed ID: 24877822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Dose and image quality assessment.
Maldera A; De Marco P; Colombo PE; Origgi D; Torresin A
Phys Med; 2017 Jan; 33():56-67. PubMed ID: 28010921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 3D digital breast tomosynthesis image reconstruction using anisotropic total variation minimization.
Seyyedi S; Yildirim I
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2014; 2014():6052-5. PubMed ID: 25571377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Combined iterative reconstruction and image-domain decomposition for dual energy CT using total-variation regularization.
Dong X; Niu T; Zhu L
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051909. PubMed ID: 24784388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Gap compensation during PET image reconstruction by constrained, total variation minimization.
Ahn S; Kim SM; Son J; Lee DS; Sung Lee J
Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):589-602. PubMed ID: 22320768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of time-efficient reconstruction methods in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Svahn TM; Houssami N
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):331-6. PubMed ID: 25855075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Simultaneous correction of sensitivity and spatial resolution in projection-based magnetic particle imaging.
Murase K
Med Phys; 2020 Apr; 47(4):1845-1859. PubMed ID: 32003025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Key technologies in digital breast tomosynthesis system:theory, design, and optimization].
Li M; Ma K; Tao X; Wang Y; He J; Wei Z; Chen G; Li S; Zeng D; Bian Z; Wu G; Liao S; Ma J
Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao; 2019 Feb; 39(2):192-200. PubMed ID: 30890508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data.
Young S; Bakic PR; Myers KJ; Jennings RJ; Park S
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051914. PubMed ID: 23635284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Dependency of image quality on system configuration parameters in a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Tucker AW; Lu J; Zhou O
Med Phys; 2013 Mar; 40(3):031917. PubMed ID: 23464332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Fully iterative scatter corrected digital breast tomosynthesis using GPU-based fast Monte Carlo simulation and composition ratio update.
Kim K; Lee T; Seong Y; Lee J; Jang KE; Choi J; Choi YW; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Cho S; Ye JC
Med Phys; 2015 Sep; 42(9):5342-55. PubMed ID: 26328983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
