These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28291738)
1. Design and validation of realistic breast models for use in multiple alternative forced choice virtual clinical trials. Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Young KC; Cooke V; Wilkinson L; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Wells K Phys Med Biol; 2017 Apr; 62(7):2778-2794. PubMed ID: 28291738 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The simulation of 3D mass models in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Shaheen E; De Keyzer F; Bosmans H; Dance DR; Young KC; Van Ongeval C Med Phys; 2014 Aug; 41(8):081913. PubMed ID: 25086544 [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. Effect of glandularity on the detection of simulated cancers in planar, tomosynthesis, and synthetic 2D imaging of the breast using a hybrid virtual clinical trial. Mackenzie A; Kaur S; Thomson EL; Mitchell M; Elangovan P; Warren LM; Dance DR; Young KC Med Phys; 2021 Nov; 48(11):6859-6868. PubMed ID: 34496038 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of an improved algorithm for producing realistic 3D breast software phantoms: application for mammography. Bliznakova K; Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Pallikarakis N Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5604-17. PubMed ID: 21158272 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Lesion detectability in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using different targets and observers. Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Young KC; Wells K Phys Med Biol; 2018 May; 63(9):095014. PubMed ID: 29637906 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Monte Carlo simulation for the estimation of the glandular breast dose for a digital breast tomosynthesis system. Rodrigues L; Magalhaes LA; Braz D Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Dec; 167(4):576-83. PubMed ID: 25480841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data. Young S; Bakic PR; Myers KJ; Jennings RJ; Park S Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051914. PubMed ID: 23635284 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality. Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Hadjipanteli A; Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Looney PT; Wells K; Dance DR; Young KC Phys Med Biol; 2017 Feb; 62(3):858-877. PubMed ID: 28072582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Vecchio S; Albanese A; Vignoli P; Taibi A Eur Radiol; 2011 Jun; 21(6):1207-13. PubMed ID: 21193910 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dataset of patient-derived digital breast phantoms for in silico studies in breast computed tomography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography. Sarno A; Mettivier G; di Franco F; Varallo A; Bliznakova K; Hernandez AM; Boone JM; Russo P Med Phys; 2021 May; 48(5):2682-2693. PubMed ID: 33683711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Kim WH; Chang JM; Koo HR; Seo M; Bae MS; Lee J; Moon WK Acta Radiol; 2017 Feb; 58(2):148-155. PubMed ID: 27178032 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Development and validation of a modelling framework for simulating 2D-mammography and breast tomosynthesis images. Elangovan P; Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Rashidnasab A; Diaz O; Dance DR; Young KC; Bosmans H; Strudley CJ; Wells K Phys Med Biol; 2014 Aug; 59(15):4275-93. PubMed ID: 25029333 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system to magnified 2D mammography using breast tissue specimens. Tucker AW; Calliste J; Gidcumb EM; Wu J; Kuzmiak CM; Hyun N; Zeng D; Lu J; Zhou O; Lee YZ Acad Radiol; 2014 Dec; 21(12):1547-52. PubMed ID: 25172412 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Hadjipanteli A; Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Wells K; Dance DR; Young KC Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():25-32. PubMed ID: 30738528 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Generation of a suite of 3D computer-generated breast phantoms from a limited set of human subject data. Hsu CM; Palmeri ML; Segars WP; Veress AI; Dobbins JT Med Phys; 2013 Apr; 40(4):043703. PubMed ID: 23556929 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]