Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.A dedicated breast-PET/CT scanner: Evaluation of basic performance characteristics
Raymond R. Raylman et al.
MEDICAL PHYSICS (2018)
A phantom design for assessment of detectability in PET imaging
Scott D. Wollenweber et al.
MEDICAL PHYSICS (2016)
What observer models best reflect low-contrast detectability in CT?
Justin Solomon et al.
MEDICAL IMAGING 2015: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (2015)
The characterization of breast anatomical metrics using dedicated breast CT
Shih-Ying Huang et al.
MEDICAL PHYSICS (2011)
Efficiency of the human observer detecting random signals in random backgrounds
S Park et al.
JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA A-OPTICS IMAGE SCIENCE AND VISION (2005)
A comprehensive analysis of DgNCT coefficients for pendant-geometry cone-beam breast computed tomography
JM Boone et al.
MEDICAL PHYSICS (2004)
Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years
DSM Buist et al.
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (2004)
Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations
TM Kolb et al.
RADIOLOGY (2002)
Share Paper
