143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35691109)
1. Reliable quality assurance of X-ray mammography scanner by evaluation the standard mammography phantom image using an interpretable deep learning model.
Oh JH; Kim HG; Lee KM; Ryu CW
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Sep; 154():110369. PubMed ID: 35691109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mammography Image Quality Assurance Using Deep Learning.
Kretz T; Mueller KR; Schaeffter T; Elster C
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2020 Dec; 67(12):3317-3326. PubMed ID: 32305886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A deep learning model integrating mammography and clinical factors facilitates the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in breast cancer screening.
Liu H; Chen Y; Zhang Y; Wang L; Luo R; Wu H; Wu C; Zhang H; Tan W; Yin H; Wang D
Eur Radiol; 2021 Aug; 31(8):5902-5912. PubMed ID: 33496829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Machine learning framework for automatic image quality evaluation involving a mammographic American College of Radiology phantom.
Ho PS; Hwang YS; Tsai HY
Phys Med; 2022 Oct; 102():1-8. PubMed ID: 36030664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Automated image quality assessment of mammography phantoms: a systematic review.
Alawaji Z; Tavakoli Taba S; Rae W
Acta Radiol; 2023 Mar; 64(3):971-986. PubMed ID: 35866198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Development and validation of a deep learning model for detection of breast cancers in mammography from multi-institutional datasets.
Ueda D; Yamamoto A; Onoda N; Takashima T; Noda S; Kashiwagi S; Morisaki T; Fukumoto S; Shiba M; Morimura M; Shimono T; Kageyama K; Tatekawa H; Murai K; Honjo T; Shimazaki A; Kabata D; Miki Y
PLoS One; 2022; 17(3):e0265751. PubMed ID: 35324962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Image quality assessment via segmentation of breast lesion in X-ray and ultrasound phantom images from Fischer's full field digital mammography and ultrasound (FFDMUS) system.
Suri J; Guo Y; Coad C; Danielson T; Elbakri I; Janer R
Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2005 Feb; 4(1):83-92. PubMed ID: 15649091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.
Geras KJ; Mann RM; Moy L
Radiology; 2019 Nov; 293(2):246-259. PubMed ID: 31549948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.
Al Khalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Saeed RA
Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 24190611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images.
Chakraborty DP; Eckert MP
Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 7565344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.
Shkumat NA; Springer A; Walker CM; Rohren EM; Yang WT; Adrada BE; Arribas E; Carkaci S; Chuang HH; Santiago L; Mawlawi OR
Med Phys; 2011 Sep; 38(9):5176-85. PubMed ID: 21978062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Evaluation of a breast software model for 2D and 3D X-ray imaging studies of the breast.
Baneva Y; Bliznakova K; Cockmartin L; Marinov S; Buliev I; Mettivier G; Bosmans H; Russo P; Marshall N; Bliznakov Z
Phys Med; 2017 Sep; 41():78-86. PubMed ID: 28483356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
