160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31728938)
1. 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]
2. Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.
Barca P; Lamastra R; Tucciariello RM; Traino A; Marini C; Aringhieri G; Caramella D; Fantacci ME
Phys Eng Sci Med; 2021 Mar; 44(1):23-35. PubMed ID: 33226534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
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. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. A synthesizing method for signal-enhanced and artifact-reduced mammogram from digital breast tomosynthesis.
Kim H; Hong J; Lee T; Choi YW; Kim HH; Chae EY; Choi WJ; Cho S
Phys Med Biol; 2020 Nov; 65(21):215026. PubMed ID: 33151909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Task-based detectability in anatomical background in digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic mammography.
Monnin P; Damet J; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2024 Jan; 69(2):. PubMed ID: 38214048
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.
Choi JS; Han BK; Ko EY; Kim GR; Ko ES; Park KW
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):319-329. PubMed ID: 29931560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Replacing single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital mammography (DM) with synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images: Comparison of the diagnostic performance and radiation dose with two-view DM with or without MLO-DBT.
Kang HJ; Chang JM; Lee J; Song SE; Shin SU; Kim WH; Bae MS; Moon WK
Eur J Radiol; 2016 Nov; 85(11):2042-2048. PubMed ID: 27776658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. A new breast phantom suitable for digital mammography, contrast-enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Zhang C; Fu J
Phys Med Biol; 2023 Feb; 68(4):. PubMed ID: 36696693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Kim WH; Chang JM; Koo HR; Seo M; Bae MS; Lee J; Moon WK
Acta Radiol; 2017 Feb; 58(2):148-155. PubMed ID: 27178032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
