129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31470440)
1. Cascaded systems analysis of anatomic noise in digital mammography and dual-energy digital mammography.
Tanguay J; Lalonde R; Bjarnason TA; Yang CJ
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215002. PubMed ID: 31470440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Optimization of contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Analysis using a cascaded linear system model.
Hu YH; Scaduto DA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 44(1):43-56. PubMed ID: 28044312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Monte-Carlo study of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography with cadmium telluride photon-counting x-ray detectors.
Day JA; Tanguay J
Med Phys; 2024 Apr; 51(4):2479-2498. PubMed ID: 37967277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part I. Single-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Muller S; Ebrahimi M; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051910. PubMed ID: 23635280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.
Cederström B; Fredenberg E
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121903. PubMed ID: 25471963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Anatomical noise in contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Part II. Dual-energy imaging.
Hill ML; Mainprize JG; Carton AK; Saab-Puong S; Iordache R; Muller S; Jong RA; Dromain C; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081907. PubMed ID: 23927321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dual-energy approach to contrast-enhanced mammography using the balanced filter method: spectral optimization and preliminary phantom measurement.
Saito M
Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4236-46. PubMed ID: 18072488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN PROTOCOL IN THE EVALUATION OF DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY UNITS WITH TUNGSTEN TARGET TUBES.
Borg M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(4):507-518. PubMed ID: 30986308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluating noise reduction techniques while considering anatomical noise in dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography.
Allec N; Abbaszadeh S; Scott CC; Karim KS; Lewin JM
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051904. PubMed ID: 23635274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Generation and analysis of clinically relevant breast imaging x-ray spectra.
Hernandez AM; Seibert JA; Nosratieh A; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2148-2160. PubMed ID: 28303582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Should processed or raw image data be used in mammographic image quality analyses? A comparative study of three full-field digital mammography systems.
Borg M; Badr I; Royle G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jan; 163(1):102-17. PubMed ID: 24692583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Diaz O; Young KC
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Study of the performance change in digital mammography systems depending on the total number of examinations.
Kaya Karaaslan M; Muzoğlu N; Gündoğdu Ö
Biomed Phys Eng Express; 2022 Nov; 8(6):. PubMed ID: 36260966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A task-based quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Nov; 59(21):6621-35. PubMed ID: 25325670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
