453 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26936739)
1. 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]
2. Analyzing visual-search observers using eye-tracking data for digital breast tomosynthesis images.
Jiang Z; Das M; Gifford HC
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis; 2017 Jun; 34(6):838-845. PubMed ID: 29036067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Model observer for assessing digital breast tomosynthesis for multi-lesion detection in the presence of anatomical noise.
Wen G; Markey MK; Haygood TM; Park S
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Feb; 63(4):045017. PubMed ID: 29376838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Towards Visual-Search Model Observers for Mass Detection in Breast Tomosynthesis.
Lau BA; Das M; Gifford HC
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2013 Mar; 8668():. PubMed ID: 24236226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A visual-search model observer for multislice-multiview SPECT images.
Gifford HC
Med Phys; 2013 Sep; 40(9):092505. PubMed ID: 24007181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Task Equivalence for Model and Human-Observer Comparisons in SPECT Localization Studies.
Sen A; Kalantari F; Gifford HC
IEEE Trans Nucl Sci; 2016 Jun; 63(3):1426-1434. PubMed ID: 27980345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Efficient visual-search model observers for PET.
Gifford HC
Br J Radiol; 2014 Jul; 87(1039):20140017. PubMed ID: 24837105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Lesion detectability in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using different targets and observers.
Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Young KC; Wells K
Phys Med Biol; 2018 May; 63(9):095014. PubMed ID: 29637906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Correlation between a 2D channelized Hotelling observer and human observers in a low-contrast detection task with multislice reading in CT.
Yu L; Chen B; Kofler JM; Favazza CP; Leng S; Kupinski MA; McCollough CH
Med Phys; 2017 Aug; 44(8):3990-3999. PubMed ID: 28555878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Task-based performance analysis of FBP, SART and ML for digital breast tomosynthesis using signal CNR and Channelised Hotelling Observers.
Van de Sompel D; Brady SM; Boone J
Med Image Anal; 2011 Feb; 15(1):53-70. PubMed ID: 20713313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Localization of liver lesions in abdominal CT imaging: II. Mathematical model observer performance correlates with human observer performance for localization of liver lesions in abdominal CT imaging.
Dilger SKN; Leng S; Chen B; Carter RE; Favazza CP; Fletcher JG; McCollough CH; Yu L
Phys Med Biol; 2019 May; 64(10):105012. PubMed ID: 30995626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Characterization of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of machine learning in projection views and reconstructed slices.
Chan HP; Wu YT; Sahiner B; Wei J; Helvie MA; Zhang Y; Moore RH; Kopans DB; Hadjiiski L; Way T
Med Phys; 2010 Jul; 37(7):3576-86. PubMed ID: 20831065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Das M; Gifford HC; O'Connor JM; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2009 Jun; 36(6):1976-84. PubMed ID: 19610286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mass detection in reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis volumes with a computer-aided detection system trained on 2D mammograms.
van Schie G; Wallis MG; Leifland K; Danielsson M; Karssemeijer N
Med Phys; 2013 Apr; 40(4):041902. PubMed ID: 23556896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis using complementary information of simulated projection.
Kim ST; Kim DH; Ro YM
Med Phys; 2015 Dec; 42(12):7043-58. PubMed ID: 26632059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.
Reiser I; Nishikawa RM; Giger ML; Wu T; Rafferty EA; Moore R; Kopans DB
Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):482-91. PubMed ID: 16532956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Correlation between human observer performance and model observer performance in differential phase contrast CT.
Li K; Garrett J; Chen GH
Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):111905. PubMed ID: 24320438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
