116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31221403)
1. 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]
2. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Dose and image quality assessment.
Maldera A; De Marco P; Colombo PE; Origgi D; Torresin A
Phys Med; 2017 Jan; 33():56-67. PubMed ID: 28010921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of the technical performance of three different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems in the clinical environment.
Rodríguez-Ruiz A; Castillo M; Garayoa J; Chevalier M
Phys Med; 2016 Jun; 32(6):767-77. PubMed ID: 27180118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISATION OF FOUR DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS SYSTEMS.
Ortenzia O; Rossi R; Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Ghetti C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2018 Oct; 181(3):277-289. PubMed ID: 29462366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems.
Marshall NW; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(22):7629-50. PubMed ID: 23123601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials.
Mackenzie A; Marshall NW; Hadjipanteli A; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(6):2376-2397. PubMed ID: 28151431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Cascaded systems analysis of shift-variant image quality in slit-scanning breast tomosynthesis.
Berggren K; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Fredenberg E
Med Phys; 2018 Oct; 45(10):4392-4401. PubMed ID: 30091470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. High resolution stationary digital breast tomosynthesis using distributed carbon nanotube x-ray source array.
Qian X; Tucker A; Gidcumb E; Shan J; Yang G; Calderon-Colon X; Sultana S; Lu J; Zhou O; Spronk D; Sprenger F; Zhang Y; Kennedy D; Farbizio T; Jing Z
Med Phys; 2012 Apr; 39(4):2090-9. PubMed ID: 22482630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quantitative image quality measurements of a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2013 Dec; 185(12):1188-94. PubMed ID: 23888475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. In-plane image quality and NPWE detectability index in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Monnin P; Verdun FR; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2020 May; 65(9):095013. PubMed ID: 32191923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; Del Sarto D; Fantacci ME; Russo P
Phys Med Biol; 2021 Mar; 66(6):065024. PubMed ID: 33535193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An iterative reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis imaging using real data at three radiation doses.
Polat A; Yildirim I
J Xray Sci Technol; 2018; 26(3):347-360. PubMed ID: 29504549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
