381 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27147364)
21. Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis.
Gennaro G; Bernardi D; Houssami N
Eur Radiol; 2018 Feb; 28(2):573-581. PubMed ID: 28819862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. A quantitative metrology for performance characterization of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on an anthropomorphic phantom.
Ikejimba L; Lo JY; Chen Y; Oberhofer N; Kiarashi N; Samei E
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1627. PubMed ID: 27036562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Diagnostic Efficacy of Synthesized 2D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Multi-ethnic Malaysian Population.
Mumin NA; Rahmat K; Fadzli F; Ramli MT; Westerhout CJ; Ramli N; Rozalli FI; Ng KH
Sci Rep; 2019 Feb; 9(1):1459. PubMed ID: 30728394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images.
Chakraborty DP
Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Monte-Carlo simulation of a slot-scanning digital mammography system for tomosynthesis.
Kulkarni M; Dendere R; Nicolls F; Douglas TS
J Xray Sci Technol; 2016; 24(2):191-206. PubMed ID: 27002901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.
Paulis LE; Lobbes MB; Lalji UC; Gelissen N; Bouwman RW; Wildberger JE; Jeukens CR
Invest Radiol; 2015 Oct; 50(10):679-85. PubMed ID: 26011823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. CT head-scan dosimetry in an anthropomorphic phantom and associated measurement of ACR accreditation-phantom imaging metrics under clinically representative scan conditions.
Brunner CC; Stern SH; Minniti R; Parry MI; Skopec M; Chakrabarti K
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081917. PubMed ID: 23927331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Quantitative assessment of microcalcification cluster image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis, 2-dimensional and synthetic mammography.
Petropoulos AE; Skiadopoulos SG; Karahaliou AN; Messaris GAT; Arikidis NS; Costaridou LI
Med Biol Eng Comput; 2020 Jan; 58(1):187-209. PubMed ID: 31813091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparing image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on radiologists' reviews of phantom data.
Sundell VM; Jousi M; Mäkelä T; Kaasalainen T; Hukkinen K
Acta Radiol; 2023 May; 64(5):1799-1807. PubMed ID: 36437753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study.
Tagliafico A; Mariscotti G; Durando M; Stevanin C; Tagliafico G; Martino L; Bignotti B; Calabrese M; Houssami N
Eur Radiol; 2015 Jan; 25(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 25163902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
Al Khalifah K; Brindabhan A; Mathew M; Davidson R
J Allied Health; 2019; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.
Horvat JV; Keating DM; Rodrigues-Duarte H; Morris EA; Mango VL
Radiographics; 2019; 39(2):307-318. PubMed ID: 30681901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Noise equalization for detection of microcalcification clusters in direct digital mammogram images.
McLoughlin KJ; Bones PJ; Karssemeijer N
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2004 Mar; 23(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 15027524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.
Hakim CM; Catullo VJ; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Kelly AE; Shinde DD; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Bandos AI; Gur D
Radiology; 2015 Jul; 276(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 25768673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Radiation dose from digital breast tomosynthesis screening - A comparison with full field digital mammography.
M Ali RMK; England A; Tootell AK; Hogg P
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2020 Dec; 51(4):599-603. PubMed ID: 32943362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
