323 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933080)
1. A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology.
Börjesson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Kheddache S; Svensson S; Tingberg A; Grahn A; Ruschin M; Hemdal B; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):45-52. PubMed ID: 15933080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. VIEWDEX: an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies.
Håkansson M; Svensson S; Zachrisson S; Svalkvist A; Båth M; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):42-51. PubMed ID: 20200105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [A comparison of the monitor and alternator findings of digital thoracic images with the aid of a computer-supported procedure].
Heckermann D; Fink U; Schätzl M; Fink B; Kenn W; Miller P; Pistitsch C; Herrmann K; Reiser M
Rofo; 1998 Jul; 169(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 9711281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment and optimisation of the image quality of chest-radiography systems.
Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Doehring W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):264-8. PubMed ID: 15933119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Patient doses and image quality in digital chest radiology.
Salát D; Nikodemová D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):147-9. PubMed ID: 18321878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A conceptual optimisation strategy for radiography in a digital environment.
Båth M; Håkansson M; Hansson J; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):230-5. PubMed ID: 15933113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC).
Chakraborty DP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):26-31. PubMed ID: 15933077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology.
Fernandez JM; Ordiales JM; Guibelalde E; Prieto C; Vano E
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):140-3. PubMed ID: 18283060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems.
Metz CE
J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Jun; 3(6):413-22. PubMed ID: 17412096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic advantages and possibilities for secondary reconstruction of NewTom 9000 data sets using eFilm.
Schulze D; Heiland M
Int J Comput Dent; 2004 Jan; 7(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 15317308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Investigation of possible methods for equipment self-tests in digital radiology.
Zoetelief J; Idris HH; Jansen JT
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):269-73. PubMed ID: 16461526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. RADIUS--closing the circle on the assessment of imaging performance.
Moores BM; Mattsson S; Månsson LG; Panzer W; Regulla D; Dance D; Alm Carlsson G; Verdun FR; Buhr E; Hoeschen C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):450-7. PubMed ID: 15933154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Optimage central organised image quality control including statistics and reporting.
Jahnen A; Schilz C; Shannoun F; Schreiner A; Hermen J; Moll C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):253-7. PubMed ID: 18252849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions.
Krupinski EA; Johnson J; Roehrig H; Nafziger J; Lubin J
Acad Radiol; 2005 Aug; 12(8):957-64. PubMed ID: 16023384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images--comparison with subjective visual assessment.
Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Honey I; Blake P
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(23):5743-57. PubMed ID: 16306665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. VIEWDEX 3.0-RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF A SOFTWARE APPLICATION FACILITATING ASSESSMENT OF IMAGE QUALITY AND OBSERVER PERFORMANCE.
Svalkvist A; Svensson S; Hagberg T; Båth M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 Oct; 195(3-4):372-377. PubMed ID: 33683321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A strategy to qualify the performance of radiographic monitors.
Gutierrez D; Monnin P; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):192-7. PubMed ID: 15933107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [A visual displayer for publishing radiologic images on the World Wide Web].
Setti E; Musumeci R
Radiol Med; 2000 May; 99(5):383-7. PubMed ID: 10938708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
