234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16306665)
1. 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]
2. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Quality assurance (QA) procedures for software: evaluation of an ADC quality system.
Efstathopoulos EP; Benekos O; Molfetas M; Charou E; Kottou S; Argentos S; Kelekis NL
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):291-7. PubMed ID: 16464840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom.
Dragusin O; Bosmans H; Pappas C; Desmet W
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(18):4927-40. PubMed ID: 18711249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparing planar image quality of rotating slat and parallel hole collimation: influence of system modeling.
Van Holen R; Vandenberghe S; Staelens S; Lemahieu I
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Apr; 53(7):1989-2002. PubMed ID: 18356576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and effective dose using four digital systems.
Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Mackenzie A; Tabakov S; Lewis CA
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):273-7. PubMed ID: 15933121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Image-quality figure evaluator based on contrast-detail phantom in radiography.
Wang CL; Wang CM; Chan YK; Chen RT
Int J Med Robot; 2012 Jun; 8(2):169-77. PubMed ID: 22213357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment.
Thijssen JM; Weijers G; de Korte CL
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 33(3):460-71. PubMed ID: 17275983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A clinical evaluation of the image quality computer program, CoCIQ.
Norrman E; Gårdestig M; Persliden J; Geijer H
J Digit Imaging; 2005 Jun; 18(2):138-44. PubMed ID: 15827822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Fractal-feature distance as a substitute for observer performance index in contrast-detail examination.
Imai K; Ikeda M; Enchi Y; Niimi T
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):541-5. PubMed ID: 17689214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems.
Körner M; Treitl M; Schaetzing R; Pfeifer KJ; Reiser M; Wirth S
Invest Radiol; 2006 Jul; 41(7):593-9. PubMed ID: 16772853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Assessment of three different software systems in the evaluation of dynamic MRI of the breast.
Kurz KD; Steinhaus D; Klar V; Cohnen M; Wittsack HJ; Saleh A; Mödder U; Blondin D
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Feb; 69(2):300-7. PubMed ID: 18060715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Optimization of image quality and dose for Varian aS500 electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs).
McGarry CK; Grattan MW; Cosgrove VP
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Dec; 52(23):6865-77. PubMed ID: 18029980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
