106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11318318)
1. Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems.
Samei E; Seibert JA; Willis CE; Flynn MJ; Mah E; Junck KL
Med Phys; 2001 Mar; 28(3):361-71. PubMed ID: 11318318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quantitative assessment of computed radiography quality control parameters.
Rampado O; Isoardi P; Ropolo R
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Mar; 51(6):1577-93. PubMed ID: 16510964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Acceptance testing of Computed Radiography systems.
Riccardi L; Cauzzo MC; Fabbris R
Radiol Med; 2005; 110(5-6):676-88. PubMed ID: 16437053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Calibrating automatic exposure control devices for digital radiography.
Doyle P; Martin CJ
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5475-85. PubMed ID: 17047264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Performance evaluation of soft copy display systems according to AAPM TG18 protocol.
Olgar T; Kamberli E
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2013 Jun; 36(2):231-41. PubMed ID: 23729181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation and testing of computed radiography systems.
Charnock P; Connolly PA; Hughes D; Moores BM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):201-7. PubMed ID: 15933109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography.
Steiding C; Kolditz D; Kalender WA
Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031901. PubMed ID: 24593719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. AEC set-up optimisation with computed radiography imaging.
Mazzocchi S; Belli G; Busoni S; Gori C; Menchi I; Salucci P; Taddeucci A; Zatelli G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):169-73. PubMed ID: 16461503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Quantitative radiographic imaging using a photostimulable phosphor system.
Floyd CE; Chotas HG; Dobbins JT; Ravin CE
Med Phys; 1990; 17(3):454-9. PubMed ID: 2385203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Automatic quantitative low contrast analysis of digital chest phantom radiographs.
Kwan AL; Filipow LJ; Le LH
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):312-20. PubMed ID: 12674230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency.
Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Pattacini P; Ginocchi V; Iori M
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2617-27. PubMed ID: 22559632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation.
Busch HP; Faulkner K
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):143-7. PubMed ID: 16461521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Technical assessment of a cone-beam CT scanner for otolaryngology imaging: image quality, dose, and technique protocols.
Xu J; Reh DD; Carey JP; Mahesh M; Siewerdsen JH
Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4932-42. PubMed ID: 22894419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems.
Samei E; Flynn MJ
Med Phys; 2002 Apr; 29(4):447-59. PubMed ID: 11991117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Recommendations on performance characteristics of diagnostic exposure meters: report of AAPM Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Task Group No. 6.
Wagner LK; Fontenla DP; Kimme-Smith C; Rothenberg LN; Shepard J; Boone JM
Med Phys; 1992; 19(1):231-41. PubMed ID: 1620054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. SU-E-I-101: Initial Implementation and Evaluation of AAPM TG-150 Draft Image Receptor Non-Uniformity Testing Recommendations.
Dave J; Gingold E; Yorkston J; Bercha I; Goldman L; Walz-Flannigan A; Willis C
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part5):3648. PubMed ID: 28517653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report.
Samei E; Badano A; Chakraborty D; Compton K; Cornelius C; Corrigan K; Flynn MJ; Hemminger B; Hangiandreou N; Johnson J; Moxley-Stevens DM; Pavlicek W; Roehrig H; Rutz L; Shepard J; Uzenoff RA; Wang J; Willis CE;
Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1205-25. PubMed ID: 15895604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Tests for evaluating laser film digitizers.
Meeder RJ; Jaffray DA; Munro P
Med Phys; 1995 May; 22(5):635-42. PubMed ID: 7643804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessment of flat panel LCD primary class display performance based on AAPM TG 18 acceptance protocol.
Jung H; Kim HJ; Kang WS; Yoo SK; Fujioka K; Hasegawa M; Samei E
Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2155-64. PubMed ID: 15305470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
