121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27320154)
1. [Comparison of Contrast to Noise Ratio and Signal Difference to Noise Ratio Based on QA and QC Guidelines in CR Mammography].
Nagami A; Ishii M; Ishii R; Kodama S; Sanada T; Yoshida A
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2016 Jun; 72(6):503-13. PubMed ID: 27320154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.
Nishino TK; Wu X; Johnson RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):960-3. PubMed ID: 16177415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
Dance DR; Thilander AK; Sandborg M; Skinner CL; Castellano IA; Carlsson GA
Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effective detective quantum efficiency for two mammography systems: measurement and comparison against established metrics.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101916. PubMed ID: 24089918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Generalized SDNR analysis based on signal and noise power.
Monnin P; Gnesin S; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
Phys Med; 2019 Aug; 64():10-15. PubMed ID: 31515008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Radiation dose evaluation in a photon-counting digital mammography unit].
Matsubara K; Matsumoto C; Mochiya Y; Toda K; Noto K; Koshida K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2014 May; 70(5):445-52. PubMed ID: 24858289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Diaz O; Young KC
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Image Quality and Radiation Dose for Fibrofatty Breast using Target/filter Combinations in Two Digital Mammography Systems.
Alkhalifah K; Asbeutah A; Brindhaban A
J Clin Imaging Sci; 2020; 10():56. PubMed ID: 33024611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography.
Wu X; Gingold EL; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
Radiology; 1994 Oct; 193(1):83-9. PubMed ID: 8090926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems.
Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Oct; 59(19):5741-61. PubMed ID: 25198143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
