151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16967781)
1. Intra- and interobserver agreement and performance score of breast phantom image interpretation: influence of ambient room lighting levels.
Koyama K; Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Muramoto H; Satake H; Sawaki A; Kato K; Fukushima H; Ishigaki T
Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):147-53. PubMed ID: 16967781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Influence of monitor luminance and room illumination on soft-copy reading evaluation with electronically generated contrast-detail phantom: comparison of cathode-ray tube monitor with liquid crystal display.
Muramoto H; Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Koyama K; Fukushima H; Ishigaki T
Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):115-20. PubMed ID: 16967777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The influence of increased ambient lighting on mass detection in mammograms.
Pollard BJ; Samei E; Chawla AS; Baker J; Ghate S; Kim C; Soo MS; Hashimoto N
Acad Radiol; 2009 Mar; 16(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 19201358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of observer performance on soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: high resolution liquid-crystal display monitors versus cathode-ray tube monitors.
Park CM; Lee HJ; Goo JM; Han DH; Kim JH; Lim KY; Kim SH; Kang JJ; Kim KG; Lee CH; Chun EJ; Im JG
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Apr; 66(1):13-8. PubMed ID: 17689217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays.
Samei E; Poolla A; Ulissey MJ; Lewin JM
Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 17434067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D; Soo MS; Walsh R; Pisano E; Kuzmiak CM; Pavic D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26. PubMed ID: 17070449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitors and 5-megapixel liquid crystal monitors for soft-copy reading in full-field digital mammography.
Schueller G; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Pinker K; Memarsadeghi M; Weber M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2010 Oct; 76(1):68-72. PubMed ID: 19481396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Full-field digital mammography on LCD versus CRT monitors.
Zuley ML; Willison KM; Bonaccio E; Miller DP; Leong DL; Seifert PJ; Somerville P; Destounis S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):1492-8. PubMed ID: 17114542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. LCD versus CRT monitors for digital mammography: a comparison of observer performance for the detection of clustered microcalcifications and masses.
Cha JH; Moon WK; Cho N; Lee EH; Park JS; Jang MJ
Acta Radiol; 2009 Dec; 50(10):1104-8. PubMed ID: 19922305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A preliminary study for exploring the luminance ratio of liquid-crystal displays required for display of radiographs.
Takarabe S; Morishita J; Yabuuchi H; Akamine H; Hashimoto N; Nakamura Y; Matsuo Y; Hattori A
Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):73-8. PubMed ID: 24002707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):714-20. PubMed ID: 17729000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study.
Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Soeda H; Matsuo Y; Okafuji T; Sakai S; Furuya A; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Honda H
Eur Radiol; 2007 May; 17(5):1365-71. PubMed ID: 17093968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Ambient illumination revisited: a new adaptation-based approach for optimizing medical imaging reading environments.
Chawla AS; Samei E
Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):81-90. PubMed ID: 17278493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Phantom-based comparison of conventional versus phase-contrast mammography for LCD soft-copy diagnosis.
Ihori A; Fujita N; Sugiura A; Yasuda N; Kodera Y
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2013 Jul; 8(4):621-33. PubMed ID: 23263885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interobserver agreement and performance score comparison in quality control using a breast phantom: screen-film mammography vs computed radiography.
Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Satake H; Ishigaki S; Sawaki A; Ishigaki T
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2192-7. PubMed ID: 12195469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.
Yamada T; Suzuki A; Uchiyama N; Ohuchi N; Takahashi S
Eur Radiol; 2008 Nov; 18(11):2363-9. PubMed ID: 18491108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The influence of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors on observer performance for the detection of nodular lesions on chest radiographs.
Usami H; Ikeda M; Ishigaki T; Fukushima H; Shimamoto K
Eur Radiol; 2006 Mar; 16(3):726-32. PubMed ID: 16284772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
