130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31470440)
21. A method to incorporate the effect of beam quality on image noise in a digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) based computer simulation for optimisation of digital radiography.
Moore CS; Wood TJ; Saunderson JR; Beavis AW
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Sep; 62(18):7379-7393. PubMed ID: 28742062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.
Ghani MU; Wong MD; Wu D; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Fuh J; Wu X; Liu H
Phys Med Biol; 2017 May; 62(9):3523-3538. PubMed ID: 28379851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The effect of amorphous selenium detector thickness on dual-energy digital breast imaging.
Hu YH; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2014 Nov; 41(11):111904. PubMed ID: 25370637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Analytical optimization of digital subtraction mammography with contrast medium using a commercial unit.
Rosado-Méndez I; Palma BA; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5544-57. PubMed ID: 19175112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comprehensive assessment of image quality in synthetic and digital mammography: a quantitative comparison.
Barca P; Lamastra R; Aringhieri G; Tucciariello RM; Traino A; Fantacci ME
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2019 Dec; 42(4):1141-1152. PubMed ID: 31728938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study.
Knogler T; Homolka P; Hörnig M; Leithner R; Langs G; Waitzbauer M; Pinker-Domenig K; Leitner S; Helbich TH
Eur Radiol; 2016 Jun; 26(6):1575-81. PubMed ID: 26373754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Compositional breast imaging using a dual-energy mammography protocol.
Laidevant AD; Malkov S; Flowers CI; Kerlikowske K; Shepherd JA
Med Phys; 2010 Jan; 37(1):164-74. PubMed ID: 20175478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Digital mammography, sestamibi breast scintigraphy, and positron emission tomography breast imaging.
Pisano ED; Parham CA
Radiol Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 38(4):861-9, x. PubMed ID: 10943283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety].
Schöfer H; Kotsianos D; Wirth S; Britsch S; Reiser M
Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The impact of calibration phantom errors on dual-energy digital mammography.
Mou X; Chen X; Sun L; Yu H; Ji Z; Zhang L
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Nov; 53(22):6321-36. PubMed ID: 18936520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
