130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15259665)
1. Impact of resolution and noise characteristics of digital radiographic detectors on the detectability of lung nodules.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Hoeschen C
Med Phys; 2004 Jun; 31(6):1603-13. PubMed ID: 15259665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Diagnostic performance of a flat-panel detector at low tube voltage in chest radiography: a phantom study.
Bernhardt TM; Rapp-Bernhardt U; Lenzen H; Röhl FW; Diederich S; Papke K; Ludwig K; Heindel W
Invest Radiol; 2004 Feb; 39(2):97-103. PubMed ID: 14734924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.
Strotzer M; Völk M; Wild T; von Landenberg P; Feuerbach S
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):512-5. PubMed ID: 10796933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs.
Samei E; Flynn MJ; Eyler WR
Radiology; 1999 Dec; 213(3):727-34. PubMed ID: 10580946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of system noise.
Håkansson M; Båth M; Börjesson S; Kheddache S; Johnsson AA; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):97-101. PubMed ID: 15933088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
Rong XJ; Shaw CC; Johnston DA; Lemacks MR; Liu X; Whitman GJ; Dryden MJ; Stephens TW; Thompson SK; Krugh KT; Lai CJ
Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2052-61. PubMed ID: 12349926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Image quality of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector.
Neitzel U; Maack I; Günther-Kohfahl S
Med Phys; 1994 Apr; 21(4):509-16. PubMed ID: 8058016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
Segui JA; Zhao W
Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digital chest imaging using a selenium detector. A simulated diffuse interstitial pulmonary disease detection study.
van Heesewijk HP; van der Graaf Y; de Valois JC; Feldberg AM
Invest Radiol; 1995 May; 30(5):300-5. PubMed ID: 7558735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Selenium-based digital radiography versus high-resolution storage phosphor radiography in the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules without calcification: receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
Awai K; Komi M; Hori S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Nov; 177(5):1141-4. PubMed ID: 11641189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions.
Schaefer-Prokop CM; Prokop M; Schmidt A; Neitzel U; Galanski M
Radiology; 1996 Oct; 201(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 8816519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of anatomical noise.
Båth M; Håkansson M; Börjesson S; Hoeschen C; Tischenko O; Kheddache S; Vikgren J; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):109-13. PubMed ID: 15933090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors.
Marshall NW; Mackenzie A; Honey ID
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Feb; 56(4):979-99. PubMed ID: 21248386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Subtle lung nodules: influence of local anatomic variations on detection.
Samei E; Flynn MJ; Peterson E; Eyler WR
Radiology; 2003 Jul; 228(1):76-84. PubMed ID: 12750455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Detectability of simulated pulmonary nodules on chest radiographs: comparison between irradiation side sampling indirect flat-panel detector and computed radiography.
Yano Y; Yabuuchi H; Tanaka N; Morishita J; Akasaka T; Matsuo Y; Sunami S; Kamitani T; Jinnouchi M; Yamasaki Y; Nagao M; Sasaki M
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 82(11):2050-4. PubMed ID: 23827799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction.
Strotzer M; Völk M; Fründ R; Hamer O; Zorger N; Feuerbach S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jan; 178(1):169-71. PubMed ID: 11756114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Diagnostic performance of a prototype dual-energy chest imaging system ROC analysis.
Kashani H; Varon CA; Paul NS; Gang GJ; Van Metter R; Yorkston J; Siewerdsen JH
Acad Radiol; 2010 Mar; 17(3):298-308. PubMed ID: 20042351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of an improved method of simulating lung nodules in chest tomosynthesis.
Svalkvist A; Johnsson ÅA; Vikgren J; Håkansson M; Ullman G; Boijsen M; Fisichella V; Flinck A; Molnar D; Månsson LG; Båth M
Acta Radiol; 2012 Oct; 53(8):874-84. PubMed ID: 22850573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Physical imaging properties and low-contrast performance of a newly developed flat-panel digital radiographic system.
Matsumoto M; Yamazaki T; Nokita M; Hayashida S; Yoshida A; Ideguchi T; Himuro K; Ohki M; Kumazawa S; Higashida Y
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2005 Dec; 61(12):1656-65. PubMed ID: 16395242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
