127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35038692)
1. A statistical alternative to current measures of image quality in digital mammography.
Caldwell D; Baldelli P; Phelan N; Kenny P
Phys Med Biol; 2022 Feb; 67(3):. PubMed ID: 35038692
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. NPWE model observer as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis of digital detectors in general radiography.
Van Peteghem N; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Nov; 61(21):N575-N591. PubMed ID: 27754987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
Segui JA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Toward image quality assessment in mammography using model observers: Detection of a calcification-like object.
Bouwman RW; Mackenzie A; van Engen RE; Broeders MJM; Young KC; Dance DR; den Heeten GJ; Veldkamp WJH
Med Phys; 2017 Nov; 44(11):5726-5739. PubMed ID: 28837225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Analysis of the threshold image contrast obtained with the CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 4.0 phantoms.
Biegała M; Jakubowska T; Stępińska A; Woźniak P
Phys Eng Sci Med; 2023 Jun; 46(2):897-902. PubMed ID: 37185808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme.
Monnin P; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of signal to noise ratios from spatial and frequency domain formulations of nonprewhitening model observers in digital mammography.
Sisini F; Zanca F; Marshall NW; Taibi A; Cardarelli P; Bosmans H
Med Phys; 2012 Sep; 39(9):5652-63. PubMed ID: 22957631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computation of realistic virtual phantom images for an objective lesion detectability assessment in digital mammography.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2011 Dec; 33(10):1276-86. PubMed ID: 21741291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
