177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29376103)
1. Virtual assessment of stereoscopic viewing of digital breast tomosynthesis projection images.
Wen G; Chang HC; Reinhold J; Lo JY; Markey MK
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2018 Jan; 5(1):015501. PubMed ID: 29376103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Computational assessment of stereoscopic viewing a sequence of stereo pairs of breast tomosynthesis projection images.
Gezheng Wen ; Markey MK
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2014; 2014():6048-51. PubMed ID: 25571376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Lesion detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: human reader experiments indicate no benefit from the integration of information from multiple planes.
Balta C; Reiser I; Broeders MJM; Veldkamp WJH; van Engen RE; Sechopoulos I
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2023 Feb; 10(Suppl 1):S11915. PubMed ID: 37378263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views.
Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Zelakiewicz S; Schmitz A; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Nees AV; Neal CH; Carson P; Lu Y; Hadjiiski L; Wei J
Radiology; 2014 Dec; 273(3):675-85. PubMed ID: 25007048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Model observer for assessing digital breast tomosynthesis for multi-lesion detection in the presence of anatomical noise.
Wen G; Markey MK; Haygood TM; Park S
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Feb; 63(4):045017. PubMed ID: 29376838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of source blur on digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
Zheng J; Fessler JA; Chan HP
Med Phys; 2019 Dec; 46(12):5572-5592. PubMed ID: 31494953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Detectability comparison of simulated tumors in digital breast tomosynthesis using high-energy X-ray inline phase sensitive and commercial imaging systems.
Ghani MU; Wong MD; Omoumi FH; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Wu X; Liu H
Phys Med; 2018 Mar; 47():34-41. PubMed ID: 29609816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials.
Mackenzie A; Marshall NW; Hadjipanteli A; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(6):2376-2397. PubMed ID: 28151431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The effect of amorphous selenium detector thickness on dual-energy digital breast imaging.
Hu YH; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2014 Nov; 41(11):111904. PubMed ID: 25370637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.
Reiser I; Nishikawa RM; Giger ML; Wu T; Rafferty EA; Moore R; Kopans DB
Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):482-91. PubMed ID: 16532956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Design and feasibility studies of a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Yang G; Qian X; Phan T; Sprenger F; Sultana S; Calderon-Colon X; Kearse B; Spronk D; Lu J; Zhou O
Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A; 2011 Aug; 648(Suppl 1):S220-S223. PubMed ID: 21808428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Eben EB; Jebsen IN; Krager M; Haakenaasen U; Ekseth U; Izadi M; Hofvind S; Gullien R
Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):655-63. PubMed ID: 24484063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis using joint information from volumetric and planar projection images.
Samala RK; Chan HP; Lu Y; Hadjiiski LM; Wei J; Helvie MA
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Nov; 60(21):8457-79. PubMed ID: 26464355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis using complementary information of simulated projection.
Kim ST; Kim DH; Ro YM
Med Phys; 2015 Dec; 42(12):7043-58. PubMed ID: 26632059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Stereoscopic interpretation of low-dose breast tomosynthesis projection images.
Muralidhar GS; Markey MK; Bovik AC; Haygood TM; Stephens TW; Geiser WR; Garg N; Adrada BE; Dogan BE; Carkaci S; Khisty R; Whitman GJ
J Digit Imaging; 2014 Apr; 27(2):248-54. PubMed ID: 24190140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
