125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38214048)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
Segui JA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Hu YH; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2011 May; 38(5):2455-66. PubMed ID: 21776781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Optimization of contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Analysis using a cascaded linear system model.
Hu YH; Scaduto DA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 44(1):43-56. PubMed ID: 28044312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Deep learning denoising of digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study of the effect on detection of microcalcifications in breast phantom images.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Gao M; Hadjiiski L; Zhou C; Garver K; Klein KA; McLaughlin C; Oudsema R; Rahman WT; Roubidoux MA
Med Phys; 2023 Oct; 50(10):6177-6189. PubMed ID: 37145996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The Generalized NEQ and Detectability Index for Tomosynthesis and Cone-Beam CT: From Cascaded Systems Analysis to Human Observers.
Gang GJ; Lee J; Stayman JW; Tward DJ; Zbijewski W; Prince JL; Siewerdsen JH
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2010 Mar; 7622():. PubMed ID: 24307930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography using a hybrid performance test.
Cockmartin L; Marshall NW; Van Ongeval C; Aerts G; Stalmans D; Zanca F; Shaheen E; De Keyzer F; Dance DR; Young KC; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2015 May; 60(10):3939-58. PubMed ID: 25909596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Lesion detectability in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using different targets and observers.
Elangovan P; Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Young KC; Wells K
Phys Med Biol; 2018 May; 63(9):095014. PubMed ID: 29637906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Multiscale bilateral filtering for improving image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Lu Y; Chan HP; Wei J; Hadjiiski LM; Samala RK
Med Phys; 2015 Jan; 42(1):182-95. PubMed ID: 25563259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A virtual trial framework for quantifying the detectability of masses in breast tomosynthesis projection data.
Young S; Bakic PR; Myers KJ; Jennings RJ; Park S
Med Phys; 2013 May; 40(5):051914. PubMed ID: 23635284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. A task-based quality control metric for digital mammography.
Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
Phys Med Biol; 2014 Nov; 59(21):6621-35. PubMed ID: 25325670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems.
Marshall NW; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(22):7629-50. PubMed ID: 23123601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.
Cederström B; Fredenberg E
Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121903. PubMed ID: 25471963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
