221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28483356)
1. Evaluation of a breast software model for 2D and 3D X-ray imaging studies of the breast.
Baneva Y; Bliznakova K; Cockmartin L; Marinov S; Buliev I; Mettivier G; Bosmans H; Russo P; Marshall N; Bliznakov Z
Phys Med; 2017 Sep; 41():78-86. PubMed ID: 28483356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. In-line phase-contrast breast tomosynthesis: a phantom feasibility study at a synchrotron radiation facility.
Bliznakova K; Russo P; Kamarianakis Z; Mettivier G; Requardt H; Bravin A; Buliev I
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Aug; 61(16):6243-63. PubMed ID: 27486086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Development of realistic physical breast phantoms matched to virtual breast phantoms based on human subject data.
Kiarashi N; Nolte AC; Sturgeon GM; Segars WP; Ghate SV; Nolte LW; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):4116-26. PubMed ID: 26133612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Breast tomosynthesis using the multiple projection algorithm adapted for stationary detectors.
Malliori A; Bliznakova K; Bliznakov Z; Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Pallikarakis N
J Xray Sci Technol; 2016; 24(1):23-41. PubMed ID: 26890907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An object-oriented simulator for 3D digital breast tomosynthesis imaging system.
Seyyedi S; Cengiz K; Kamasak M; Yildirim I
Comput Math Methods Med; 2013; 2013():250689. PubMed ID: 24371468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.
Meyblum E; Gardavaud F; Dao TH; Fournier V; Beaussart P; Pigneur F; Baranes L; Rahmouni A; Luciani A
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2015 Sep; 96(9):931-9. PubMed ID: 25908324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Monte-Carlo simulation of a slot-scanning digital mammography system for tomosynthesis.
Kulkarni M; Dendere R; Nicolls F; Douglas TS
J Xray Sci Technol; 2016; 24(2):191-206. PubMed ID: 27002901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison study of reconstruction algorithms for prototype digital breast tomosynthesis using various breast phantoms.
Kim YS; Park HS; Lee HH; Choi YW; Choi JG; Kim HH; Kim HJ
Radiol Med; 2016 Feb; 121(2):81-92. PubMed ID: 26383027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Segmented separable footprint projector for digital breast tomosynthesis and its application for subpixel reconstruction.
Zheng J; Fessler JA; Chan HP
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):986-1001. PubMed ID: 28058719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Fabrication of 3D printed patient-derived anthropomorphic breast phantoms for mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Imaging assessment with clinical X-ray spectra.
Varallo A; Sarno A; Castriconi R; Mazzilli A; Loria A; Del Vecchio A; Orientale A; Pilotti IAM; D'Andria P; Bliznakova K; Ricciardi R; Mettivier G; Russo P
Phys Med; 2022 Jun; 98():88-97. PubMed ID: 35526373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of the BreastSimulator software platform for breast tomography.
Mettivier G; Bliznakova K; Sechopoulos I; Boone JM; Di Lillo F; Sarno A; Castriconi R; Russo P
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Jul; 62(16):6446-6466. PubMed ID: 28398906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Power spectrum analysis of the x-ray scatter signal in mammography and breast tomosynthesis projections.
Sechopoulos I; Bliznakova K; Fei B
Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101905. PubMed ID: 24089907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
