187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29514152)
21. 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]
22. A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography.
McParland BJ; Boyd MM
Br J Radiol; 2000 Jun; 73(870):613-26. PubMed ID: 10911785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Threshold in breast compression reduction for full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Afandy AN; Tori MB; Bintalib SO; Soh BLP
Radiography (Lond); 2024 Jan; 30(1):217-225. PubMed ID: 38035436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Dosimetric and image quality comparison of two digital mammography units with different target/filter combinations: Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh, W/Rh, W/Ag.
Emanuelli S; Rizzi E; Amerio S; Fasano C; Cesarani F
Radiol Med; 2011 Mar; 116(2):310-8. PubMed ID: 21225367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography.
Smathers RL; Boone JM; Lee LJ; Berns EA; Miller RA; Wright AM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 May; 188(5):1414-21. PubMed ID: 17449790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Effect of target/filter combination on the mean glandular dose and contrast-detail threshold: A phantom study.
Nunes RS; Batista WO
Radiography (Lond); 2021 May; 27(2):272-278. PubMed ID: 32861599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography.
McParland BJ
Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1068-77. PubMed ID: 11271899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
