131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7565344)
1. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images.
Chakraborty DP; Eckert MP
Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 7565344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images.
Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ; Lawton DT
Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):709-23. PubMed ID: 9167162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images.
Chakraborty DP
Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Subjective evaluations of mammographic accreditation phantom images by three observer groups.
Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ
Invest Radiol; 1994 Jan; 29(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 8144336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computerized evaluation of mammographic image quality using phantom images.
Dougherty G
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 1998; 22(5):365-73. PubMed ID: 9890181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Computerized quantitative evaluation of mammographic accreditation phantom images.
Lee Y; Tsai DY; Shinohara N
Med Phys; 2010 Dec; 37(12):6323-31. PubMed ID: 21302789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessment of mammography quality in Istanbul.
Gürdemir B; Arıbal E
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2012; 18(5):468-72. PubMed ID: 22801869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Relationship between phantom failure rates and radiation dose in mammography accreditation.
Haus AG; Yaffe MJ; Feig SA; Hendrick RE; Butler PA; Wilcox PA; Bansal S
Med Phys; 2001 Nov; 28(11):2297-301. PubMed ID: 11764036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program.
McLelland R; Hendrick RE; Zinninger MD; Wilcox PA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Sep; 157(3):473-9. PubMed ID: 1872231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mammography accreditation and equipment performance.
Barnes GT; Hendrick RE
Radiographics; 1994 Jan; 14(1):129-38. PubMed ID: 8128045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations.
McLean D; Eckert M; Heard R; Chan W
Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. CT head-scan dosimetry in an anthropomorphic phantom and associated measurement of ACR accreditation-phantom imaging metrics under clinically representative scan conditions.
Brunner CC; Stern SH; Minniti R; Parry MI; Skopec M; Chakrabarti K
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081917. PubMed ID: 23927331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Inconsistencies of Microcalcification Specks in Phantoms Approved by the American College of Radiology for Mammography Accreditation.
Imamura K; Terada H; Hagiwara A; Higashida Y; Ehara N; Ohuchi N
Igaku Butsuri; 2000; 20(1):46-55. PubMed ID: 12764251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. American College of Radiology (ACR). Mammography Accreditation Program: Guidelines.
Wilcox PA
Stat Bull Metrop Insur Co; 1991; 72(1):17. PubMed ID: 2011816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
Alvarez M; Pina DR; Miranda JR; Duarte SB
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography.
de las Heras H; Schöfer F; Tiller B; Chevalier M; Zwettler G; Semturs F
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Apr; 58(8):L17-30. PubMed ID: 23528479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Automated daily quality control analysis for mammography in a multi-unit imaging center.
Sundell VM; Mäkelä T; Meaney A; Kaasalainen T; Savolainen S
Acta Radiol; 2019 Feb; 60(2):140-148. PubMed ID: 29768928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
