121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27320154)
21. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh, and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography.
Gingold EL; Wu X; Barnes GT
Radiology; 1995 Jun; 195(3):639-44. PubMed ID: 7753987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Evaluation of the 1Shot Phantom dedicated to the mammography system using FCR].
Nagashima C; Uchiyama N; Moriyama N; Nagata M; Kobayashi H; Sankoda K; Saotome S; Tagi M; Kusunoki T
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 Jul; 65(7):921-30. PubMed ID: 19661726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Effect of x-ray tube parameters and iodine concentration on image quality and radiation dose in cerebral pediatric and adult CT angiography: a phantom study.
Papadakis AE; Perisinakis K; Raissaki M; Damilakis J
Invest Radiol; 2013 Apr; 48(4):192-9. PubMed ID: 23344518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography.
Young KC; Oduko JM; Bosmans H; Nijs K; Martinez L
Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79(948):981-90. PubMed ID: 17213303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Investigation of detector uniformity issues for Siemens Inspiration systems.
Baldelli P; Keavey E; Manley M; Power G; Phelan N
Phys Med; 2020 Jan; 69():262-268. PubMed ID: 31927263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Mammography dosimetry using an in-house developed polymethyl methacrylate phantom.
Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS; Chourasiya G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(2):379-85. PubMed ID: 22232773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Assessment of an advanced image-based technique to calculate virtual monoenergetic computed tomographic images from a dual-energy examination to improve contrast-to-noise ratio in examinations using iodinated contrast media.
Grant KL; Flohr TG; Krauss B; Sedlmair M; Thomas C; Schmidt B
Invest Radiol; 2014 Sep; 49(9):586-92. PubMed ID: 24710203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
Muhogora WE; Devetti A; Padovani R; Msaki P; Bonutti F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
Thierens H; Bosmans H; Buls N; De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Jacobs J; Clerinx P
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jun; 70(3):539-48. PubMed ID: 18374533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Dual-energy, standard and low-kVp contrast-enhanced CT-cholangiography: a comparative analysis of image quality and radiation exposure.
Stiller W; Schwarzwaelder CB; Sommer CM; Veloza S; Radeleff BA; Kauczor HU
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jul; 81(7):1405-12. PubMed ID: 21458939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety].
Schöfer H; Kotsianos D; Wirth S; Britsch S; Reiser M
Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography.
Boone JM; Fewell TR; Jennings RJ
Med Phys; 1997 Dec; 24(12):1863-74. PubMed ID: 9434969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography.
de las Heras H; Schöfer F; Tiller B; Chevalier M; Zwettler G; Semturs F
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Apr; 58(8):L17-30. PubMed ID: 23528479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A novel method for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) evaluation of digital mammography detectors.
Baldelli P; Phelan N; Egan G
Eur Radiol; 2009 Sep; 19(9):2275-85. PubMed ID: 19424702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography.
Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Yaffe M; Alm Carlsson G
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jul; 50(13):3143-52. PubMed ID: 15972986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Design and development of a phantom for tomosynthesis with potential for automated analysis via the cloud.
Goodenough D; Levy J; Olafsdottir H; Olafsson I
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 May; 19(3):291-300. PubMed ID: 29508535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. An alternative method for noise analysis using pixel variance as part of quality control procedures on digital mammography systems.
Bouwman R; Young K; Lazzari B; Ravaglia V; Broeders M; van Engen R
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Nov; 54(22):6809-22. PubMed ID: 19847017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
