148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29768928)
1. Automated daily quality control analysis for mammography in a multi-unit imaging center.
Sundell VM; Mäkelä T; Meaney A; Kaasalainen T; Savolainen S
Acta Radiol; 2019 Feb; 60(2):140-148. PubMed ID: 29768928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A multiparametric automatic method to monitor long-term reproducibility in digital mammography: results from a regional screening programme.
Gennaro G; Ballaminut A; Contento G
Eur Radiol; 2017 Sep; 27(9):3776-3787. PubMed ID: 28130611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images.
Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ; Lawton DT
Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):709-23. PubMed ID: 9167162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
Alvarez M; Pina DR; Miranda JR; Duarte SB
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. MRI quality assurance using the ACR phantom in a multi-unit imaging center.
Ihalainen TM; Lönnroth NT; Peltonen JI; Uusi-Simola JK; Timonen MH; Kuusela LJ; Savolainen SE; Sipilä OE
Acta Oncol; 2011 Aug; 50(6):966-72. PubMed ID: 21767198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Conversion factors between human and automatic readouts of CDMAM phantom images of CR mammography systems.
Figl M; Homolka P; Osanna-Elliott A; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hummel J
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 61(18):N514-N521. PubMed ID: 27580001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of equipment performance, patient dose, imaging quality, and diagnostic coincidence in five Mexico City mammography services.
Brandan ME; Ruiz-Trejo C; Verdejo-Silva M; Guevara M; Lozano-Zalce H; Madero-Preciado L; Martín J; Noel-Etienne LM; Ramírez-Arias JL; Soto J; Villaseñor Y
Arch Med Res; 2004; 35(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 15036796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Evaluation of an automated grid artifact detection system for quality control in digital mammography.
MacLellan CJ; Layman RR; Geiser W; Gress DA; Jones AK
Med Phys; 2019 Aug; 46(8):3442-3450. PubMed ID: 31116445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Evaluation of the 1Shot Phantom dedicated to the mammography system using FCR].
Nagashima C; Uchiyama N; Moriyama N; Nagata M; Kobayashi H; Sankoda K; Saotome S; Tagi M; Kusunoki T
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 Jul; 65(7):921-30. PubMed ID: 19661726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images.
Chakraborty DP; Eckert MP
Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 7565344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Investigation of quality control and average glandular dose and image quality in digital mammography in Hokkaido].
Kurowarabi K; Abe H; Horita H; Kaneta K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2011; 67(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 21532248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Central online quality assurance in radiology: an IT solution exemplified by the German Breast Cancer Screening Program].
Czwoydzinski J; Girnus R; Sommer A; Heindel W; Lenzen H
Rofo; 2011 Sep; 183(9):849-54. PubMed ID: 21830180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview.
Bosmans H; Carton AK; Rogge F; Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Nijs K; Van Steen A; Marchal G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):120-30. PubMed ID: 16461531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters.
Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H
J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography.
Figl M; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hoffmann R; Kaldarar H; Homolka P; Mostbeck G; Scholz B; Hummel J
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Jan; 58(2):N13-23. PubMed ID: 23257608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
