376 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27587041)
1. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Claus F; Celis V; Geniets C; Provost V; Pauwels H; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):765-75. PubMed ID: 19378737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of automatic exposure control options in digital mammography.
Zhou Y; Scott A; Allahverdian J; Frankel S
J Xray Sci Technol; 2014; 22(3):377-94. PubMed ID: 24865213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: free response human observer studies.
Ruschin M; Timberg P; Båth M; Hemdal B; Svahn T; Saunders RS; Samei E; Andersson I; Mattsson S; Chakrabort DP; Tingber A
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):400-7. PubMed ID: 17388156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimized signal of calcifications in wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis: a virtual imaging trial.
Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Lueck F; Marshall N; Keupers M; Nanke R; Kappler S; Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2024 Mar; ():. PubMed ID: 38546790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. How Does the Display Luminance Level Affect Detectability of Breast Microcalcifications and Spiculated Lesions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Images?
Ferranti C; Primolevo A; Cartia F; Cavatorta C; Ciniselli CM; Lualdi M; Meroni S; Pignoli E; Plebani M; Siciliano C; Verderio P; Scaperrotta G
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jul; 24(7):795-801. PubMed ID: 28189505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Microcalcification detectability using a bench-top prototype photon-counting breast CT based on a Si strip detector.
Cho HM; Ding H; Barber WC; Iwanczyk JS; Molloi S
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):4401-10. PubMed ID: 26133636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Model observer performance in contrast-enhanced lesions in breast CT: The influence of contrast concentration on detectability.
Lyu SH; Hernandez AM; Shakeri SA; Abbey CK; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2023 Nov; 50(11):6748-6761. PubMed ID: 37639329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis].
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):1052-6. PubMed ID: 11199434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as Replacement of Full-Field Digital Mammography Using an In Silico Imaging Trial.
Badano A; Graff CG; Badal A; Sharma D; Zeng R; Samuelson FW; Glick SJ; Myers KJ
JAMA Netw Open; 2018 Nov; 1(7):e185474. PubMed ID: 30646401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Improved microcalcification visualization using dual-energy digital mammography.
Tsai CJ; Chen RC; Peng HL; Hsu WL; Lee JJ
Acta Radiol; 2013 Jul; 54(6):614-21. PubMed ID: 23528569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. AEC for scanning digital mammography based on variation of scan velocity.
Aslund M; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Danielsson M
Med Phys; 2005 Nov; 32(11):3367-74. PubMed ID: 16370424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
