138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37820686)
1. Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: II. Artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry.
Marshall NW; Cockmartin L; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2023 Oct; 68(21):. PubMed ID: 37820686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: I. Iodine signal testing.
Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2023 Oct; 68(21):. PubMed ID: 37820689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Mammography dosimetry using an in-house developed polymethyl methacrylate phantom.
Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS; Chourasiya G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(2):379-85. PubMed ID: 22232773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An approach to dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM) using a double layer filter: dosimetric and image quality assessment.
Niroshani S; Nakamura T; Michiru N; Negishi T
J Radiol Prot; 2022 Jul; 42(2):. PubMed ID: 35730431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Optimization of a dual-energy contrast-enhanced technique for a photon-counting digital breast tomosynthesis system: I. A theoretical model.
Carton AK; Ullberg C; Lindman K; Acciavatti R; Francke T; Maidment AD
Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5896-907. PubMed ID: 21158302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
