138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36437753)
21. Investigating simulation-based metrics for characterizing linear iterative reconstruction in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Rose SD; Sanchez AA; Sidky EY; Pan X
Med Phys; 2017 Sep; 44(9):e279-e296. PubMed ID: 28901614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Assessment of the uterine dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Cepeda Martins AR; Di Maria S; Afonso J; Pereira M; Pereira J; Vaz P
Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):333-339. PubMed ID: 34565679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Experimental evaluation of seven quality control phantoms for digital breast tomosynthesis.
Sage J; Fezzani KL; Fitton I; Hadid L; Moussier A; Pierrat N; Martineau A; Dreuil S; Heulers L; Etard C
Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():137-144. PubMed ID: 30738517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. An iterative reconstruction algorithm for digital breast tomosynthesis imaging using real data at three radiation doses.
Polat A; Yildirim I
J Xray Sci Technol; 2018; 26(3):347-360. PubMed ID: 29504549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Variation in digital breast tomosynthesis image quality at differing heights above the detector.
Davidson R; Al Khalifah K; Zhou A
J Med Radiat Sci; 2022 Jun; 69(2):174-181. PubMed ID: 34957671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Quantitative assessment of microcalcification cluster image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis, 2-dimensional and synthetic mammography.
Petropoulos AE; Skiadopoulos SG; Karahaliou AN; Messaris GAT; Arikidis NS; Costaridou LI
Med Biol Eng Comput; 2020 Jan; 58(1):187-209. PubMed ID: 31813091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Assessment of task-based performance from five clinical DBT systems using an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Goodsitt M; Chan HP; Huang H; Zhao W; Ghammraoui B; Lo JY; Glick SJ
Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 48(3):1026-1038. PubMed ID: 33128288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Deformable mapping technique to correlate lesions in digital breast tomosynthesis and automated breast ultrasound images.
Green CA; Goodsitt MM; Brock KK; Davis CL; Larson ED; Lau JH; Carson PL
Med Phys; 2018 Oct; 45(10):4402-4417. PubMed ID: 30066340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images.
Vecchio S; Albanese A; Vignoli P; Taibi A
Eur Radiol; 2011 Jun; 21(6):1207-13. PubMed ID: 21193910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data.
Bouwman RW; van Engen RE; Young KC; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ; Schopphoven S; Jeukens CR; Veldkamp WJ; Dance DR
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Oct; 60(20):7893-907. PubMed ID: 26407015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.
Meyblum E; Gardavaud F; Dao TH; Fournier V; Beaussart P; Pigneur F; Baranes L; Rahmouni A; Luciani A
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2015 Sep; 96(9):931-9. PubMed ID: 25908324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Segmented separable footprint projector for digital breast tomosynthesis and its application for subpixel reconstruction.
Zheng J; Fessler JA; Chan HP
Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):986-1001. PubMed ID: 28058719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
Al Khalifah K; Brindabhan A; Mathew M; Davidson R
J Allied Health; 2019; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A Case for Wide-Angle Breast Tomosynthesis.
Samei E; Thompson J; Richard S; Bowsher J
Acad Radiol; 2015 Jul; 22(7):860-9. PubMed ID: 25920335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Can compression be reduced for breast tomosynthesis? Monte carlo study on mass and microcalcification conspicuity in tomosynthesis.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Lo JY; Baker JA
Radiology; 2009 Jun; 251(3):673-82. PubMed ID: 19474373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Audit of data from examination image headers collected for quality assurance in the ECOG-ACRIN EA1151 tomosynthesis mammographic imaging screening trial (TMIST).
Maki AK; Mawdsley GE; Mainprize JG; Pisano E; Shen SZ; Alonzo-Proulx O; Yaffe MJ
Med Phys; 2023 Dec; 50(12):7427-7440. PubMed ID: 37824821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.
Barca P; Lamastra R; Tucciariello RM; Traino A; Marini C; Aringhieri G; Caramella D; Fantacci ME
Phys Eng Sci Med; 2021 Mar; 44(1):23-35. PubMed ID: 33226534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Design and application of a structured phantom for detection performance comparison between breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.
Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Zhang G; Lemmens K; Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Fredenberg E; Dance DR; Salvagnini E; Michielsen K; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Jan; 62(3):758-780. PubMed ID: 28072573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
