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

138 related items for PubMed ID: 30826837

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

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

  • 3. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Marshall NW.
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.
    Al Khalifah KH, Brindhaban A, Saeed RA.
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 24190611
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
    Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N, Fasciano M, Tagliafico A, Bosco D, Casella C, Bogetti C, Bergamasco L, Fonio P, Gandini G.
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Mammographic Phantoms Frequently Used to Determine Image Quality: A Comparative Study.
    AlKhalifah K, Brindabhan A.
    J Allied Health; 2017 Dec; 46(4):239-242. PubMed ID: 29202159
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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]

  • 9. A four-alternative forced choice (4AFC) methodology for evaluating microcalcification detection in clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) systems using an inkjet-printed anthropomorphic phantom.
    Ikejimba LC, Salad J, Graff CG, Ghammraoui B, Cheng WC, Lo JY, Glick SJ.
    Med Phys; 2019 Sep; 46(9):3883-3892. PubMed ID: 31135960
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Assessing task performance in FFDM, DBT, and synthetic mammography using uniform and anthropomorphic physical phantoms.
    Ikejimba LC, Glick SJ, Choudhury KR, Samei E, Lo JY.
    Med Phys; 2016 Oct; 43(10):5593. PubMed ID: 27782687
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
    Alkhalifah K, Brindabhan A, Alsaeed R.
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
    James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
    Seo N, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Cha JH, Kim H, Moon JH, Gong G, Ahn SH, Son BH.
    Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR.
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Experimental evaluation of seven quality control phantoms for digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Sage J, Fezzani KL, Fitton I, Hadid L, Moussier A, Pierrat N, Martineau A, Dreuil S, Heulers L, Etard C.
    Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():137-144. PubMed ID: 30738517
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Automated Breast Density Computation in Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Influence on Mean Glandular Dose and BIRADS Density Categorization.
    Castillo-García M, Chevalier M, Garayoa J, Rodriguez-Ruiz A, García-Pinto D, Valverde J.
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Jul; 24(7):802-810. PubMed ID: 28214227
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography.
    Alkhalifah KH, Brindhaban A, Asbeutah AM.
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2016 Oct 06; 24(5):681-689. PubMed ID: 27341625
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.
    Alkhalifah K, Brindhaban A.
    Med Princ Pract; 2018 Oct 06; 27(3):211-216. PubMed ID: 29514152
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 7.