576 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20229882)
1. Accurate MTF measurement in digital radiography using noise response.
Kuhls-Gilcrist A; Jain A; Bednarek DR; Hoffmann KR; Rudin S
Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):724-35. PubMed ID: 20229882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of edge analysis techniques for the determination of the MTF of digital radiographic systems.
Samei E; Buhr E; Granfors P; Vandenbroucke D; Wang X
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Aug; 50(15):3613-25. PubMed ID: 16030386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of a simple method for deriving the presampled modulation transfer function of a digital radiographic system from an edge image.
Buhr E; Günther-Kohfahl S; Neitzel U
Med Phys; 2003 Sep; 30(9):2323-31. PubMed ID: 14528954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A method for the determination of the two-dimensional MTF of digital radiography systems using only the noise response.
Kuhls-Gilcrist A; Bednarek DR; Rudin S
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2010 Mar; 7622(76224W):76224W-76244W9. PubMed ID: 21170177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function.
Samei E; Ranger NT; Dobbins JT; Chen Y
Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1454-65. PubMed ID: 16752580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control.
Carton AK; Vandenbroucke D; Struye L; Maidment AD; Kao YH; Albert M; Bosmans H; Marchal G
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1684-95. PubMed ID: 16013727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector.
Zhao W; Ji WG; Debrie A; Rowlands JA
Med Phys; 2003 Feb; 30(2):254-63. PubMed ID: 12607843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
Boyce SJ; Samei E
Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Determination of the modulation transfer function using the edge method: influence of scattered radiation.
Neitzel U; Buhr E; Hilgers G; Granfors PR
Med Phys; 2004 Dec; 31(12):3485-91. PubMed ID: 15651631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Proposal and verification of presampled MTF measurement by simple analysis using the edge method].
Higashide R; Ichikawa K; Kunitomo H; Sawada M
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2008 Apr; 64(4):417-25. PubMed ID: 18451598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Estimation of the two-dimensional presampled modulation transfer function of digital radiography devices using one-dimensional test objects.
Wells JR; Dobbins JT
Med Phys; 2012 Oct; 39(10):6148-60. PubMed ID: 23039654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Image quality in two phosphor-based flat panel digital radiographic detectors.
Samei E
Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1747-57. PubMed ID: 12906192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Measuring the presampled MTF from a reduced number of flat-field images using the Noise Response (NR) method.
Kuhls-Gilcrist A; Jain A; Bednarek DR; Rudin S
Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng; 2011 Mar; 7961(79614G):. PubMed ID: 21731401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems.
Samei E; Flynn MJ
Med Phys; 2003 Apr; 30(4):608-22. PubMed ID: 12722813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of the effects of pixel loss on image quality in direct digital radiography.
Padgett R; Kotre CJ
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Mar; 49(6):977-86. PubMed ID: 15104320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Evaluation of the imaging properties of an amorphous selenium-based flat panel detector for digital fluoroscopy.
Hunt DC; Tousignant O; Rowlands JA
Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):1166-75. PubMed ID: 15191306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comprehensive model for quantum noise characterization in digital mammography.
Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2016 Mar; 61(5):2083-108. PubMed ID: 26895467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Comparison of noise characteristics of direct and indirect conversion flat panel detectors].
Murai M; Kishimoto K; Tanaka K; Oota K; Ienaga A
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2010 Nov; 66(11):1443-8. PubMed ID: 21099174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
