160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30017278)
1. Comparison of screening performance metrics and patient dose of two mammographic image acquisition modes in the Danish National Breast Cancer Screening Programme.
Abdi AJ; Fieselmann A; Pfaff H; Mertelmeier T; Larsen LB
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Aug; 105():188-194. PubMed ID: 30017278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact on dose and image quality of a software-based scatter correction in mammography.
Monserrat T; Prieto E; Barbés B; Pina L; Elizalde A; Fernández B
Acta Radiol; 2018 Jun; 59(6):649-656. PubMed ID: 28870087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Dose reduction through gridless technique in digital full-field mammography].
Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Berzeg S; Bick U; Fischer T; Hamm B
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):769-74. PubMed ID: 12811688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of the effectiveness of 28 kV (grid) versus 25 kV (no grid) mammographic techniques for breast screening.
Warren RM; Duffy S
Br J Radiol; 1997 Oct; 70(838):1022-7. PubMed ID: 9404206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Effective detective quantum efficiency for two mammography systems: measurement and comparison against established metrics.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101916. PubMed ID: 24089918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of automated CDMAM readings for non-standard CDMAM imaging conditions: grid-less acquisitions and scatter correction.
Binst J; Sterckx B; Bemelmans F; Cockmartin L; Van Peteghem N; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):350-3. PubMed ID: 25821214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography.
Zuckerman SP; Maidment ADA; Weinstein SP; McDonald ES; Conant EF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jul; 209(1):222-229. PubMed ID: 28463546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
Weigel S; Girnus R; Czwoydzinski J; Decker T; Spital S; Heindel W
Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.
Freer PE; Riegert J; Eisenmenger L; Ose D; Winkler N; Stein MA; Stoddard GJ; Hess R
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Nov; 166(2):501-509. PubMed ID: 28780702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mismatch in breast and detector size during screening and diagnostic mammography results in increased patient radiation dose.
Wells CL; Slanetz PJ; Rosen MP
Acad Radiol; 2014 Jan; 21(1):99-103. PubMed ID: 24331271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Characterization of scatter in digital mammography from physical measurements.
Leon SM; Brateman LF; Wagner LK
Med Phys; 2014 Jun; 41(6):061901. PubMed ID: 24877812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The Impact of Acquisition Dose on Quantitative Breast Density Estimation with Digital Mammography: Results from ACRIN PA 4006.
Chen L; Ray S; Keller BM; Pertuz S; McDonald ES; Conant EF; Kontos D
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):693-700. PubMed ID: 27002418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammography Dose Survey Using International Quality Standards.
Boujemaa S; Bosmans H; Bentayeb F
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Dec; 50(4):529-535. PubMed ID: 31420271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of mammography radiation dose values obtained from direct incident air kerma measurements with values from measured X-ray spectral data.
Assiamah M; Nam TL; Keddy RJ
Appl Radiat Isot; 2005 Apr; 62(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 15701409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
