125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35038692)
21. CDMAM in digital mammography: contrast threshold measurements, achievable values and relation with dose.
Trindade H; Barreira M
J Radiol Prot; 2023 Feb; 43(1):. PubMed ID: 36645910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program.
Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist AK; Hunter DM; Mawdsley GE; Chiarelli AM; Muradali D; Mainprize JG
Med Phys; 2013 Dec; 40(12):121915. PubMed ID: 24320526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Effective detective quantum efficiency for two mammography systems: measurement and comparison against established metrics.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101916. PubMed ID: 24089918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.
Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Cooke J; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
Phys Med; 2016 Apr; 32(4):568-74. PubMed ID: 27061872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography.
Urbanczyk H; McDonagh E; Marshall NW; Castellano I
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1987-2003. PubMed ID: 22429938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Validation of a digital mammographic unit model for an objective and highly automated clinical image quality assessment.
Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
Med Eng Phys; 2013 Aug; 35(8):1089-96; discussion 1089. PubMed ID: 23207102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: II. Artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry.
Marshall NW; Cockmartin L; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2023 Oct; 68(21):. PubMed ID: 37820686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography.
Figl M; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hoffmann R; Kaldarar H; Homolka P; Mostbeck G; Scholz B; Hummel J
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Jan; 58(2):N13-23. PubMed ID: 23257608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography.
Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Karssemeijer N
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1712-8. PubMed ID: 12906188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Simulation of images of CDMAM phantom and the estimation of measurement uncertainties of threshold gold thickness.
Mackenzie A; Eales TD; Dunn HL; Yip Braidley M; Dance DR; Young KC
Phys Med; 2017 Jul; 39():137-146. PubMed ID: 28647448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [Derivation of Conversion Formula of Image Quality Figure (IQF
Nagami A; Ishii R; Kitagawa K; Ishii M; Terazono S; Sanada T; Yoshida A
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2023 Feb; 79(2):121-127. PubMed ID: 36642510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Study of digital mammographic equipments by phantom image quality.
Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():1994-6. PubMed ID: 17946081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A model observer study using acquired mammographic images of an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Balta C; Bouwman RW; Sechopoulos I; Broeders MJM; Karssemeijer N; van Engen RE; Veldkamp WJH
Med Phys; 2018 Feb; 45(2):655-665. PubMed ID: 29193129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
