381 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27147364)
1. 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]
2. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms.
Ikejimba LC; Glick SJ; Choudhury KR; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2016 Oct; 43(10):5593. PubMed ID: 27782687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet-printed anthropomorphic phantom.
Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Ghammraoui B; Cheng WC; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3883-3892. PubMed ID: 31135960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A novel physical anthropomorphic breast phantom for 2D and 3D x-ray imaging.
Ikejimba LC; Graff CG; Rosenthal S; Badal A; Ghammraoui B; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2017 Feb; 44(2):407-416. PubMed ID: 27992059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment of task-based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Goodsitt M; Chan HP; Huang H; Zhao W; Ghammraoui B; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 48(3):1026-1038. PubMed ID: 33128288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis on assessment of the lesions in dense breast: a preliminary study].
Li Y; Ye ZX; Wu T; An YH; Liu PF; Bao RX
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2013 Jan; 35(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 23648297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fully Automated Quantitative Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images: Preliminary Results and Comparison with Digital Mammography and MR Imaging.
Pertuz S; McDonald ES; Weinstein SP; Conant EF; Kontos D
Radiology; 2016 Apr; 279(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 26491909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast phantoms for 2D digital mammography with realistic anatomical structures and attenuation characteristics based on clinical images using 3D printing.
Schopphoven S; Cavael P; Bock K; Fiebich M; Mäder U
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215005. PubMed ID: 31469105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Choi Y; Woo OH; Shin HS; Cho KR; Seo BK; Choi GY
Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():12-17. PubMed ID: 30703693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Deep learning denoising of digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study of the effect on detection of microcalcifications in breast phantom images.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Gao M; Hadjiiski L; Zhou C; Garver K; Klein KA; McLaughlin C; Oudsema R; Rahman WT; Roubidoux MA
Med Phys; 2023 Oct; 50(10):6177-6189. PubMed ID: 37145996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Investigating simulation-based metrics for characterizing linear iterative reconstruction in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Rose SD; Sanchez AA; Sidky EY; Pan X
Med Phys; 2017 Sep; 44(9):e279-e296. PubMed ID: 28901614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.
Svahn TM; Houssami N; Sechopoulos I; Mattsson S
Breast; 2015 Apr; 24(2):93-9. PubMed ID: 25554018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Eben EB; Jebsen IN; Krager M; Haakenaasen U; Ekseth U; Izadi M; Hofvind S; Gullien R
Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):655-63. PubMed ID: 24484063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of full-field digital mammograms versus 2D synthesized mammograms for detection of microcalcifications on screening.
Wahab RA; Lee SJ; Zhang B; Sobel L; Mahoney MC
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 107():14-19. PubMed ID: 30292258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
