140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29514152)
1. Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.
Alkhalifah K; Brindhaban A
Med Princ Pract; 2018; 27(3):211-216. PubMed ID: 29514152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
Alkhalifah K; Brindabhan A; Alsaeed R
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Image Quality and Radiation Dose for Fibrofatty Breast using Target/filter Combinations in Two Digital Mammography Systems.
Alkhalifah K; Asbeutah A; Brindhaban A
J Clin Imaging Sci; 2020; 10():56. PubMed ID: 33024611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography.
Alkhalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Asbeutah AM
J Xray Sci Technol; 2016 Oct; 24(5):681-689. PubMed ID: 27341625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Influence of double layer filter on mean glandular dose (MGD) and image quality in low energy image of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (LE-CESM).
Niroshani HS; Nakamura T; Michiru N; Negishi T
Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):340-347. PubMed ID: 34838440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An approach to dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM) using a double layer filter: dosimetric and image quality assessment.
Niroshani S; Nakamura T; Michiru N; Negishi T
J Radiol Prot; 2022 Jul; 42(2):. PubMed ID: 35730431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of Mean Glandular Dose in Mammography System with Different Anode-Filter Combinations Using MCNP Code.
Gholamkar L; Mowlavi AA; Sadeghi M; Athari M
Iran J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 13(4):e36484. PubMed ID: 27895876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.
Ranger NT; Lo JY; Samei E
Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):962-9. PubMed ID: 20384232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector.
Baldelli P; Phelan N; Egan G
Br J Radiol; 2010 Apr; 83(988):290-5. PubMed ID: 20019173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.
Shrestha S; Vedantham S; Karellas A
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(5):1969-1993. PubMed ID: 28075335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.
Al Khalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Saeed RA
Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 24190611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
