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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

172 related items for PubMed ID: 23118577

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Zeng D, Burns CB, Roberto C, Pavic D, Lee Y, Seo BK, Koomen M, Washburn D.
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images.
    Chakraborty DP, Eckert MP.
    Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 7565344
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Impact of using the new American College of Radiology digital mammography phantom on quality survey in modern digital mammography systems: Evidence from nationwide surveys in Taiwan.
    Hwang YS, Tsai HY, Lin YY, Liao YL.
    Eur J Radiol; 2019 Aug; 117():9-14. PubMed ID: 31307658
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Breast imaging using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital mammographic system: stability of a clinical prototype.
    Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE.
    J Digit Imaging; 2000 Nov; 13(4):191-9. PubMed ID: 11110258
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
    Chakraborty DP.
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
    Al Khalifah K, Brindabhan A, Mathew M, Davidson R.
    J Allied Health; 2019 Feb; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
    Gennaro G, Katz L, Souchay H, Alberelli C, di Maggio C.
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr 21; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
    Baydush AH, Floyd CE.
    Med Phys; 2000 Jul 21; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
    Lalji UC, Jeukens CR, Houben I, Nelemans PJ, van Engen RE, van Wylick E, Beets-Tan RG, Wildberger JE, Paulis LE, Lobbes MB.
    Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct 21; 25(10):2813-20. PubMed ID: 25813015
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
    Williams MB, Raghunathan P, More MJ, Seibert JA, Kwan A, Lo JY, Samei E, Ranger NT, Fajardo LL, McGruder A, McGruder SM, Maidment AD, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist A, Mawdsley GE.
    Med Phys; 2008 Jun 21; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Effects of lesion positioning on digital magnification mammography performance.
    Liu F, Kanal KM, Stewart BK, Lehman CD.
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun 21; 17(6):791-4. PubMed ID: 20399685
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. A spiculated mass target model for clinical image quality control in digital mammography.
    Salomon E, Vanko B, Homolka P, Cockmartin L, Figl M, Clauser P, Unger E, Bosmans H, Marshall N, Hummel J.
    Br J Radiol; 2024 Feb 28; 97(1155):560-566. PubMed ID: 38265303
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.