A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography.
暂无分享,去创建一个
Mary Rickard | Donald McLean | Ann Poulos | A. Poulos | D. McLean | M. Rickard | Yanpeng Li | Yanpeng Li
[1] L W Bassett,et al. Reasons for failure of a mammography unit at clinical image review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. , 2000, Radiology.
[2] Mary Rickard,et al. Breast compression in mammography: how much is enough? , 2003, Australasian radiology.
[3] Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al. ACR–AAPM–SIIM Practice Guideline for Determinants of Image Quality in Digital Mammography , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.
[4] M. Brandan,et al. Evaluation of equipment performance, patient dose, imaging quality, and diagnostic coincidence in five Mexico City mammography services. , 2004, Archives of medical research.
[5] G. Marchal,et al. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen–film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial , 2006, European Radiology.
[6] E. Sickles,et al. Mammography with breast cushions. , 2005, Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health.
[7] Comparison of the validity and reliability of two image classification systems for the assessment of mammogram quality , 2005, Journal of medical screening.
[8] Liem T. Bui-Mansfield. Breast Imaging, 3rd ed. , 2008 .
[9] Thomas Stone. Clinical image evaluation methods for calibration and QC , 1996, Medical Imaging.
[10] Jung-Han Kim,et al. Screen-Film Mammography and Soft-Copy Full-Field Digital Mammography: Comparison in the Patients with Microcalcifications , 2005, Korean journal of radiology.
[11] N. Obuchowski,et al. Comparing the performance of mammographic enhancement algorithms: a preference study. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[12] S. Feig,et al. Image quality of screening mammography: effect on clinical outcome. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[13] C. D'Orsi,et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .
[14] M Ruschin,et al. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.
[15] Emily White,et al. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
[16] Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini,et al. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. , 2008, European journal of radiology.
[17] M. Helvie,et al. Adverse effects of increased body weight on quantitative measures of mammographic image quality. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[18] E. Bonaldo,et al. Breast biphasic compression versus standard monophasic compression in X-ray mammography. , 2000, Radiology.
[19] L. Liberman,et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.
[20] E. Grabbe,et al. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions , 2002, European Radiology.
[21] L L Fajardo,et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. , 2000, Radiology.
[22] S. Obenauer,et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography , 2002, European Radiology.
[23] Emily White,et al. Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[24] D. Blanc,et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images , 1998 .
[25] C. D'Orsi,et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.
[26] J. Heine,et al. Mammographic tissue, breast cancer risk, serial image analysis, and digital mammography. Part 2. Serial breast tissue change and related temporal influences. , 2002, Academic radiology.
[27] Glenys A. Hamilton,et al. Image quality preferences among radiographers and radiologists. A conjoint analysis , 2005 .
[28] Robert M. Nishikawa,et al. Radiologists’ Preferences for Digital Mammographic Display , 2000 .
[29] M Ruschin,et al. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.
[30] E. Denton,et al. Can radiographers read screening mammograms? , 2003, Clinical radiology.
[31] T. Helbich,et al. Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[32] C D Claussen,et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.
[33] W F Good,et al. Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
[34] Akihiro Sato,et al. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization. , 2003, Radiation medicine.