253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34407213)
1. 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]
2. Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging.
Mackenzie A; Thomson EL; Mitchell M; Elangovan P; van Ongeval C; Cockmartin L; Warren LM; Wilkinson LS; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Dance DR; Young KC
Eur Radiol; 2022 Feb; 32(2):806-814. PubMed ID: 34331118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of task-based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Goodsitt M; Chan HP; Huang H; Zhao W; Ghammraoui B; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 48(3):1026-1038. PubMed ID: 33128288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of glandularity on the detection of simulated cancers in planar, tomosynthesis, and synthetic 2D imaging of the breast using a hybrid virtual clinical trial.
Mackenzie A; Kaur S; Thomson EL; Mitchell M; Elangovan P; Warren LM; Dance DR; Young KC
Med Phys; 2021 Nov; 48(11):6859-6868. PubMed ID: 34496038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Design and application of a structured phantom for detection performance comparison between breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.
Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Zhang G; Lemmens K; Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Fredenberg E; Dance DR; Salvagnini E; Michielsen K; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Jan; 62(3):758-780. PubMed ID: 28072573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms.
Ikejimba LC; Glick SJ; Choudhury KR; Samei E; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2016 Oct; 43(10):5593. PubMed ID: 27782687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet-printed anthropomorphic phantom.
Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Ghammraoui B; Cheng WC; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3883-3892. PubMed ID: 31135960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Niklason LT; Sebuødegård S; Østerås BH; Gullien R; Gur D; Hofvind S
Radiology; 2019 Apr; 291(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 30777808
[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. Diagnostic value of digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic images in patients with breast cancer.
Bahadir H
Niger J Clin Pract; 2023 Oct; 26(10):1444-1448. PubMed ID: 37929519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting?
Clauser P; Baltzer PAT; Kapetas P; Woitek R; Weber M; Leone F; Bernathova M; Helbich TH
Eur Radiol; 2022 Jan; 32(1):661-670. PubMed ID: 34324025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Is there any added value to substitute the 2D digital MLO projection for a MLO tomosynthesis projection and its synthetic view when a 2D standard digital mammography is used in a one-stop-shop immediate reading mammography screening?
Mesurolle B; El Khoury M; Travade A; Bagard C; Pétrou A; Monghal C
Eur Radiol; 2021 Dec; 31(12):9529-9539. PubMed ID: 34047846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.
Zuckerman SP; Sprague BL; Weaver DL; Herschorn SD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2020 Dec; 297(3):545-553. PubMed ID: 33048032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Synthetic 2D Mammography Versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Abdullah P; Alabousi M; Ramadan S; Zawawi I; Zawawi M; Bhogadi Y; Freitas V; Patlas MN; Alabousi A
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Aug; 217(2):314-325. PubMed ID: 32966115
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
