156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27782687)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
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. 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]
8. 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]
9. Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer.
Choi JS; Han BK; Ko EY; Ko ES; Hahn SY; Shin JH; Kim MJ
Eur Radiol; 2016 Aug; 26(8):2538-46. PubMed ID: 26628063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. [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]
13. Design and application of a structured phantom for detection performance comparison between breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.
Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Zhang G; Lemmens K; Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Fredenberg E; Dance DR; Salvagnini E; Michielsen K; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Jan; 62(3):758-780. PubMed ID: 28072573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Complements Two-Dimensional Synthetic Mammography for Secondary Examination of Breast Cancer.
Nakajima E; Tsunoda H; Ookura M; Ban K; Kawaguchi Y; Inagaki M; Ikeda N; Furukawa K; Ishikawa T
J Belg Soc Radiol; 2021; 105(1):63. PubMed ID: 34786534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Can a channelized Hotelling observer assess image quality in acquired mammographic images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom including image processing?
Balta C; Bouwman RW; Sechopoulos I; Broeders MJM; Karssemeijer N; van Engen RE; Veldkamp WJH
Med Phys; 2019 Feb; 46(2):714-725. PubMed ID: 30561108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
