202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33226534)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Image quality of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: effects of projection-view distributions.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Goodsitt M; Carson PL; Hadjiiski L; Schmitz A; Eberhard JW; Claus BE
Med Phys; 2011 Oct; 38(10):5703-12. PubMed ID: 21992385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Multiscale bilateral filtering for improving image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM; Samala RK
Med Phys; 2015 Jan; 42(1):182-95. PubMed ID: 25563259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Selective-diffusion regularization for enhancement of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):6003-14. PubMed ID: 21158312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Synthetic 2-Dimensional Mammography Can Replace Digital Mammography as an Adjunct to Wide-Angle Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Clauser P; Baltzer PAT; Kapetas P; Woitek R; Weber M; Leone F; Bernathova M; Helbich TH
Invest Radiol; 2019 Feb; 54(2):83-88. PubMed ID: 30281557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Deep learning denoising of digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study of the effect on detection of microcalcifications in breast phantom images.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Gao M; Hadjiiski L; Zhou C; Garver K; Klein KA; McLaughlin C; Oudsema R; Rahman WT; Roubidoux MA
Med Phys; 2023 Oct; 50(10):6177-6189. PubMed ID: 37145996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Evaluation of reconstruction algorithms for a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system using a carbon nanotube X-ray source array.
Hu Z; Chen Z; Zhou C; Hong X; Chen J; Zhang Q; Jiang C; Ge Y; Yang Y; Liu X; Zheng H; Li Z; Liang D
J Xray Sci Technol; 2020; 28(6):1157-1169. PubMed ID: 32925159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography.
Lai YC; Ray KM; Lee AY; Hayward JH; Freimanis RI; Lobach IV; Joe BN
Radiology; 2018 Dec; 289(3):630-638. PubMed ID: 30277445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.
Freer PE; Riegert J; Eisenmenger L; Ose D; Winkler N; Stein MA; Stoddard GJ; Hess R
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Nov; 166(2):501-509. PubMed ID: 28780702
[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. A Case for Wide-Angle Breast Tomosynthesis.
Samei E; Thompson J; Richard S; Bowsher J
Acad Radiol; 2015 Jul; 22(7):860-9. PubMed ID: 25920335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Detectability comparison of simulated tumors in digital breast tomosynthesis using high-energy X-ray inline phase sensitive and commercial imaging systems.
Ghani MU; Wong MD; Omoumi FH; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Wu X; Liu H
Phys Med; 2018 Mar; 47():34-41. PubMed ID: 29609816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
