121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35866198)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Myers KJ
Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Adaptation of a clustered lumpy background model for task-based image quality assessment in x-ray phase-contrast mammography.
Zysk AM; Brankov JG; Wernick MN; Anastasio MA
Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):906-11. PubMed ID: 22320800
[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. A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms.
Undrill PE; O'Kane AD; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2000 Oct; 55(10):782-90. PubMed ID: 11052880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
Baydush AH; Floyd CE
Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images.
Chakraborty DP
Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A multiparametric automatic method to monitor long-term reproducibility in digital mammography: results from a regional screening programme.
Gennaro G; Ballaminut A; Contento G
Eur Radiol; 2017 Sep; 27(9):3776-3787. PubMed ID: 28130611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control.
Carton AK; Vandenbroucke D; Struye L; Maidment AD; Kao YH; Albert M; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1684-95. PubMed ID: 16013727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
