112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17057066)
1. Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: dose reduction at digital posteroanterior chest radiography.
Kroft LJ; Veldkamp WJ; Mertens BJ; van Delft JP; Geleijns J
Radiology; 2006 Nov; 241(2):392-8. PubMed ID: 17057066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography for detection of simulated nodules and interstitial disease in a chest phantom.
Kroft LJ; Geleijns J; Mertens BJ; Veldkamp WJ; Zonderland HM; de Roos A
Radiology; 2004 Apr; 231(1):156-63. PubMed ID: 14990807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dose reduction in digital chest radiography and perceived image quality.
Kroft LJ; Veldkamp WJ; Mertens BJ; van Delft JP; Geleijns J
Br J Radiol; 2007 Dec; 80(960):984-8. PubMed ID: 17940130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease.
Kroft LJ; Veldkamp WJ; Mertens BJ; Boot MV; Geleijns J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Aug; 185(2):339-46. PubMed ID: 16037503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of optimization and image processing in digital chest radiography: an ROC study with an anthropomorphic phantom.
Kheddache S; Månsson LG; Angelhed JE; Denbratt L; Gottfridsson B; Schlossman D
Eur J Radiol; 1991; 13(2):143-50. PubMed ID: 1743193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pulmonary mycobacterial disease: diagnostic performance of low-dose digital tomosynthesis as compared with chest radiography.
Kim EY; Chung MJ; Lee HY; Koh WJ; Jung HN; Lee KS
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):269-77. PubMed ID: 20851944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Chest radiography with a digital flat-panel detector: experimental receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Metz S; Damoser P; Hollweck R; Roggel R; Engelke C; Woertler K; Renger B; Rummeny EJ; Link TM
Radiology; 2005 Mar; 234(3):776-84. PubMed ID: 15734933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A technique for simulating the effect of dose reduction on image quality in digital chest radiography.
Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; van Delft JP; Geleijns J
J Digit Imaging; 2009 Apr; 22(2):114-25. PubMed ID: 18259814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Computed radiography and direct radiography: influence of acquisition dose on the detection of simulated lung lesions.
Uffmann M; Prokop M; Eisenhuber E; Fuchsjäger M; Weber M; Schaefer-Prokop C
Invest Radiol; 2005 May; 40(5):249-56. PubMed ID: 15829821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of hard-copy size on observer performance in digital chest radiography.
Schaefer CM; Prokop M; Oestmann JW; Wiesmann W; Haubitz B; Meschede A; Reichelt S; Schirg E; Stender HS; Galanski M
Radiology; 1992 Jul; 184(1):77-81. PubMed ID: 1609106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improved detection of lung nodules by using a temporal subtraction technique.
Kakeda S; Nakamura K; Kamada K; Watanabe H; Nakata H; Katsuragawa S; Doi K
Radiology; 2002 Jul; 224(1):145-51. PubMed ID: 12091674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quantitative assessment of the influence of anatomic noise on the detection of subtle lung nodule in digital chest radiography using fractal-feature distance.
Imai K; Ikeda M; Enchi Y; Niimi T
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Nov; 68(2):353-7. PubMed ID: 17920222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital radiography and conventional imaging of the chest: a comparison of observer performance.
Thaete FL; Fuhrman CR; Oliver JH; Britton CA; Campbell WL; Feist JH; Straub WH; Davis PL; Plunkett MB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Mar; 162(3):575-81. PubMed ID: 8109499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance.
Samei E; Saunders RS; Baker JA; Delong DM
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):396-404. PubMed ID: 17356178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital storage phosphor chest radiography: an ROC study of the effect of 2K versus 4K matrix size on observer performance.
Miró SP; Leung AN; Rubin GD; Choi YH; Kee ST; Mindelzun RE; Stark P; Wexler L; Plevritis SK; Betts BJ
Radiology; 2001 Feb; 218(2):527-32. PubMed ID: 11161174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Experimental evaluation of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for the pediatric chest: comparison with storage phosphor radiography at different exposures by using a chest phantom.
Rapp-Bernhardt U; Bernhardt TM; Lenzen H; Esseling R; Roehl FW; Schiborr M; Theobald-Hormann I; Heindel W
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):485-91. PubMed ID: 16170012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Data compression: effect on diagnostic accuracy in digital chest radiography.
MacMahon H; Doi K; Sanada S; Montner SM; Giger ML; Metz CE; Nakamori N; Yin FF; Xu XW; Yonekawa H
Radiology; 1991 Jan; 178(1):175-9. PubMed ID: 1984299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
