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.
3. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities. Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Diaz O, Young KC. Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. A comprehensive model for quantum noise characterization in digital mammography. Monnin P, Bosmans H, Verdun FR, Marshall NW. Phys Med Biol; 2016 Mar 07; 61(5):2083-108. PubMed ID: 26895467 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. Burgess A. Med Phys; 2004 Jul 07; 31(7):1987-95. PubMed ID: 15305451 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme. Monnin P, Bochud FO, Verdun FR. Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jul 07; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety]. Schöfer H, Kotsianos D, Wirth S, Britsch S, Reiser M. Radiologe; 2005 Mar 07; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Techniques to improve the accuracy of noise power spectrum measurements in digital x-ray imaging based on background trends removal. Zhou Z, Gao F, Zhao H, Zhang L. Med Phys; 2011 Mar 07; 38(3):1600-10. PubMed ID: 21520872 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system. Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Workman A, Yip M, Wells K, Young KC. Med Phys; 2012 May 07; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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 07; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms. Gagne RM, Gallas BD, Myers KJ. Med Phys; 2006 Jan 07; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of cassette-based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG-150 Draft Image Detector Tests. Li G, Greene TC, Nishino TK, Willis CE. J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Sep 08; 17(5):391-417. PubMed ID: 27685102 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Investigation of detector uniformity issues for Siemens Inspiration systems. Baldelli P, Keavey E, Manley M, Power G, Phelan N. Phys Med; 2020 Jan 08; 69():262-268. PubMed ID: 31927263 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Mawdsley GE, Bright S, Shen SZ, Mahesh M, Nickoloff EL, Fleischman RC, Williams MB, Maidment AD, Beideck DJ, Och J, Seibert JA. Med Phys; 2006 Mar 08; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Comparison of Contrast to Noise Ratio and Signal Difference to Noise Ratio Based on QA and QC Guidelines in CR Mammography]. Nagami A, Ishii M, Ishii R, Kodama S, Sanada T, Yoshida A. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2016 Jun 08; 72(6):503-13. PubMed ID: 27320154 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Next] [New Search]