126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30738517)
1. Experimental evaluation of seven quality control phantoms for digital breast tomosynthesis.
Sage J; Fezzani KL; Fitton I; Hadid L; Moussier A; Pierrat N; Martineau A; Dreuil S; Heulers L; Etard C
Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():137-144. PubMed ID: 30738517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet-printed anthropomorphic phantom.
Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Ghammraoui B; Cheng WC; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3883-3892. PubMed ID: 31135960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
Al Khalifah K; Brindabhan A; Mathew M; Davidson R
J Allied Health; 2019; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Typical values of z-resolution for different Digital Breast Tomosynthesis systems evaluated in a multicenter study.
Dalmonte S; Golinelli P; Oberhofer N; Strocchi S; Rossetti V; Berta L; Porzio M; Angelini L; Paruccini N; Villa R; Bertolini M; Delle Canne S; Cavallari M; D'Ercole L; Guerra G; Rosasco R; Cannillo B; D'Alessio A; Di Nicola E; Origgi D; De Marco P; Maldera A; Scabbio C; Rottoli F; Castriconi R; Lorenzini E; Pasquali G; Pietrobon F; Bregant P; Giovannini G; Favuzza V; Bruschi A; D'Urso D; Maestri D; De Novellis S; Fracassi A; Boschiroli L; Quattrocchi M; Gilio MA; Roberto E; Altabella L; Califano G; Cimmino MC; Bortoli E; Deiana E; Pagan L; Berardi P; Ardu V; Azzeroni R; Campoleoni M; Ravaglia V
Phys Med; 2024 Mar; 119():103300. PubMed ID: 38325222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Comparing image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on radiologists' reviews of phantom data.
Sundell VM; Jousi M; Mäkelä T; Kaasalainen T; Hukkinen K
Acta Radiol; 2023 May; 64(5):1799-1807. PubMed ID: 36437753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Variation in digital breast tomosynthesis image quality at differing heights above the detector.
Davidson R; Al Khalifah K; Zhou A
J Med Radiat Sci; 2022 Jun; 69(2):174-181. PubMed ID: 34957671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms.
Ikejimba LC; Glick SJ; Choudhury KR; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2016 Oct; 43(10):5593. PubMed ID: 27782687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A quantitative metrology for performance characterization of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on an anthropomorphic phantom.
Ikejimba L; Lo JY; Chen Y; Oberhofer N; Kiarashi N; Samei E
Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1627. PubMed ID: 27036562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. A phantom study comparing technical image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems.
Sundell VM; Jousi M; Hukkinen K; Blanco R; Mäkelä T; Kaasalainen T
Phys Med; 2019 Jul; 63():122-130. PubMed ID: 31221403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessment of task-based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Goodsitt M; Chan HP; Huang H; Zhao W; Ghammraoui B; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 48(3):1026-1038. PubMed ID: 33128288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
