These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37438921)

  • 1. Technical note: Realization and uncertainty analysis for an adjustable 3D structured breast phantom in digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Salomon E; Unger E; Homolka P; Cockmartin L; Petrov D; Semturs F; Songsaeng C; Panagiotis K; Vancoillie L; Figl M; Sommer A; Bosmans H; Hummel J
    Med Phys; 2023 Aug; 50(8):4816-4824. PubMed ID: 37438921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
    Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A novel physical anthropomorphic breast phantom for 2D and 3D x-ray imaging.
    Ikejimba LC; Graff CG; Rosenthal S; Badal A; Ghammraoui B; Lo JY; Glick SJ
    Med Phys; 2017 Feb; 44(2):407-416. PubMed ID: 27992059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
    Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
    Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Fabrication of 3D printed patient-derived anthropomorphic breast phantoms for mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Imaging assessment with clinical X-ray spectra.
    Varallo A; Sarno A; Castriconi R; Mazzilli A; Loria A; Del Vecchio A; Orientale A; Pilotti IAM; D'Andria P; Bliznakova K; Ricciardi R; Mettivier G; Russo P
    Phys Med; 2022 Jun; 98():88-97. PubMed ID: 35526373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
    Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
    James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Technical note: Design and initial evaluation of a novel physical breast phantom to monitor image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Fitton I; Noël A; Minassian J; Zerhouni M; Wojak J; Adel M; Fournier L
    Med Phys; 2022 Apr; 49(4):2355-2365. PubMed ID: 35100445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Updated breast CT dose coefficients (DgN
    Hernandez AM; Becker AE; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1455-1466. PubMed ID: 30661250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
    Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; Del Sarto D; Fantacci ME; Russo P
    Phys Med Biol; 2021 Mar; 66(6):065024. PubMed ID: 33535193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
    Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
    Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of glandularity on the detection of simulated cancers in planar, tomosynthesis, and synthetic 2D imaging of the breast using a hybrid virtual clinical trial.
    Mackenzie A; Kaur S; Thomson EL; Mitchell M; Elangovan P; Warren LM; Dance DR; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2021 Nov; 48(11):6859-6868. PubMed ID: 34496038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Breast phantoms for 2D digital mammography with realistic anatomical structures and attenuation characteristics based on clinical images using 3D printing.
    Schopphoven S; Cavael P; Bock K; Fiebich M; Mäder U
    Phys Med Biol; 2019 Oct; 64(21):215005. PubMed ID: 31469105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A deep learning approach to estimate x-ray scatter in digital breast tomosynthesis: From phantom models to clinical applications.
    Pinto MC; Mauter F; Michielsen K; Biniazan R; Kappler S; Sechopoulos I
    Med Phys; 2023 Aug; 50(8):4744-4757. PubMed ID: 37394837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet-printed anthropomorphic phantom.
    Ikejimba LC; Salad J; Graff CG; Ghammraoui B; Cheng WC; Lo JY; Glick SJ
    Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3883-3892. PubMed ID: 31135960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.
    Shafer CM; Samei E; Lo JY
    Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):1004-16. PubMed ID: 20384236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.