4Law J, Faulkner K. Radiation benefit and risk at the assessment stage of the UK Breat Screening Programme. BJR, 2006,79: 479-482.
5Heyes GJ. Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-ray and implications for the UK breast screening programme. BJR, 2006 79: 195-200.
6Suryanrayanan S, Karellas R, Vedantham S, et al. Hat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images, Radiology, 2002,225: 801-808.
7Robert M, Gagne BD, Myers KJ. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using image of phantom. Med Phys, 2006, 33( 1 ) : 83-95.
8Thomas JA, Chakrabarti K, Romanyukha A, et al. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology, Med Phys, 2005,32(3):808-14.
9Buhr E, Gunther-Kohfahl S, Neitzel U. Accuracy of a simple method for deriving the presampled modulation transfer function of a digital radiographic system from an edge image. Med Phys, 2003,30 ( 9 ) : 2323-2331.
10Samei E, Ranger NT, Dobbins JT, et al. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization.Ⅰ. Modulation transfer function. Med Phys, 2006,33(5) : 1454-1465.
