211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26272030)
1. Mammography with and without radiolucent positioning sheets: Comparison of projected breast area, pain experience, radiation dose and technical image quality.
Timmers J; Voorde MT; Engen RE; Landsveld-Verhoeven Cv; Pijnappel R; Greve KD; Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Oct; 84(10):1903-9. PubMed ID: 26272030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.
Broeders MJ; Ten Voorde M; Veldkamp WJ; van Engen RE; van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; 't Jong-Gunneman MN; de Win J; Greve KD; Paap E; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2015 Mar; 25(3):821-9. PubMed ID: 25504427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mammography in females with an implanted medical device: impact on image quality, pain and anxiety.
Paap E; Witjes M; van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; Pijnappel RM; Maas AH; Broeders MJ
Br J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 89(1066):20160142. PubMed ID: 27452263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Mammographic positioning quality of newly trained versus experienced radiographers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.
van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; den Heeten GJ; Timmers J; Broeders MJ
Eur Radiol; 2015 Nov; 25(11):3322-7. PubMed ID: 25987428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammography Positioning Standards in the Digital Era: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?
Huppe AI; Overman KL; Gatewood JB; Hill JD; Miller LC; Inciardi MF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Dec; 209(6):1419-1425. PubMed ID: 28871810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Geometry-Based Pectoral Muscle Segmentation From MLO Mammogram Views.
Taghanaki SA; Liu Y; Miles B; Hamarneh G
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2017 Nov; 64(11):2662-2671. PubMed ID: 28129144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reduction of discomfort during mammography utilizing a radiolucent cushioning pad.
Markle L; Roux S; Sayre JW
Breast J; 2004; 10(4):345-9. PubMed ID: 15239794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computerized nipple identification for multiple image analysis in computer-aided diagnosis.
Zhou C; Chan HP; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Sahiner B; Hadjiiski LM; Petrick N
Med Phys; 2004 Oct; 31(10):2871-82. PubMed ID: 15543797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization.
de Groot JE; Branderhorst W; Grimbergen CA; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJM
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 84(3):384-391. PubMed ID: 25554008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: Improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force.
de Groot JE; Broeders MJ; Branderhorst W; den Heeten GJ; Grimbergen CA
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081901. PubMed ID: 23927315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [The correct mammographic positioning in breast cancer screening].
Landsveld-Verhoeven C; den Heeten GJ; Timmers JM; Broeders MJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2015; 159():A9488. PubMed ID: 26507067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
Lalji UC; Jeukens CR; Houben I; Nelemans PJ; van Engen RE; van Wylick E; Beets-Tan RG; Wildberger JE; Paulis LE; Lobbes MB
Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2813-20. PubMed ID: 25813015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical assessment of a radiolucent cushion for mammography.
Tabar L; Lebovic GS; Hermann GD; Kaufman CS; Alexander C; Sayre J
Acta Radiol; 2004 Apr; 45(2):154-8. PubMed ID: 15191098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Radon-domain detection of the nipple and the pectoral muscle in mammograms.
Kinoshita SK; Azevedo-Marques PM; Pereira RR; Rodrigues JA; Rangayyan RM
J Digit Imaging; 2008 Mar; 21(1):37-49. PubMed ID: 17436047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can Breast Compression Be Reduced in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis?
Agasthya GA; D'Orsi E; Kim YJ; Handa P; Ho CP; D'Orsi CJ; Sechopoulos I
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Nov; 209(5):W322-W332. PubMed ID: 28929809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Automatic Detection of Pectoral Muscle Region for Computer-Aided Diagnosis Using MIAS Mammograms.
Yoon WB; Oh JE; Chae EY; Kim HH; Lee SY; Kim KG
Biomed Res Int; 2016; 2016():5967580. PubMed ID: 27847817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Pectoral muscle segmentation: a review.
Ganesan K; Acharya UR; Chua KC; Min LC; Abraham KT
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2013 Apr; 110(1):48-57. PubMed ID: 23270962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammography image quality: model for predicting compliance with posterior nipple line criterion.
Spuur K; Hung WT; Poulos A; Rickard M
Eur J Radiol; 2011 Dec; 80(3):713-8. PubMed ID: 20621431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Mammography: consideration about radiation from the point of a radiologist's view].
Tohno E
Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(2):74-80. PubMed ID: 12766283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A robust method for segmenting pectoral muscle in mediolateral oblique (MLO) mammograms.
Yin K; Yan S; Song C; Zheng B
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2019 Feb; 14(2):237-248. PubMed ID: 30288698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
