150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36260966)
21. Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors.
Marshall NW; Mackenzie A; Honey ID
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Feb; 56(4):979-99. PubMed ID: 21248386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.
Ghani MU; Wong MD; Wu D; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Fuh J; Wu X; Liu H
Phys Med Biol; 2017 May; 62(9):3523-3538. PubMed ID: 28379851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system.
Zhao B; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2008 May; 35(5):1978-87. PubMed ID: 18561674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM.
Gennaro G; Del Genio S; Manco G; Caumo F
Eur Radiol Exp; 2024 Apr; 8(1):49. PubMed ID: 38622388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Radiation dose evaluation in a photon-counting digital mammography unit].
Matsubara K; Matsumoto C; Mochiya Y; Toda K; Noto K; Koshida K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2014 May; 70(5):445-52. PubMed ID: 24858289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Mammography Dose Survey Using International Quality Standards.
Boujemaa S; Bosmans H; Bentayeb F
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Dec; 50(4):529-535. PubMed ID: 31420271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. 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]
33. 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]
34. COMPARISON OF SPECTRA AND MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE WITH TUBE VOLTAGES USED IN DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS FROM SIMULATED, METROLOGICAL AND CLINICAL CASES.
da Silveira Gatto LB; Braz D; Pacifico L; Travassos P; Magalhaes LAG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Dec; 192(3):402-412. PubMed ID: 33320943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Results of an automatic evaluation of test images according to PAS 1054 and IEC 6220-1-2 on different types of digital mammographic units].
Blendl C; Schreiber AC; Buhr H
Rofo; 2009 Oct; 181(10):979-88. PubMed ID: 19676013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
Muhogora WE; Devetti A; Padovani R; Msaki P; Bonutti F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters.
Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H
J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
