162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23127093)
61. Digital chest radiography with a selenium-based flat-panel detector versus a storage phosphor system: comparison of soft-copy images.
Goo JM; Im JG; Kim JH; Seo JB; Kim TS; Shine SJ; Lee W
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Oct; 175(4):1013-8. PubMed ID: 11000155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. The effect of varying high pass filter parameters on the detectability of isolated pulmonary nodules in digitized chest images.
Foley WD; Wilson CR; San Dretto M
Invest Radiol; 1986 Apr; 21(4):305-10. PubMed ID: 3700043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of nodule location.
Håkansson M; Båth M; Börjesson S; Kheddache S; Flinck A; Ullman G; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):92-6. PubMed ID: 15933087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs.
Goo JM; Choi JY; Im JG; Lee HJ; Chung MJ; Han D; Park SH; Kim JH; Nam SH
Radiology; 2004 Sep; 232(3):762-6. PubMed ID: 15273338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Perceptual and objective physical quality of chest images: a comparison between digital radiographic chest images processed for cancer screening and pneumoconiosis screening in Japan.
Akima R; J-P NA; Ito K; Nogami S; Nishimori M; Oogi K; Hayashi N; Suganuma N; Yamagami T;
Ind Health; 2023 Jul; 61(4):260-268. PubMed ID: 35934790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. [Thoracic radiographs with the AMBER system. A comparison of the diagnostic image quality of film-screen and storage-phosphor radiographs on the grid-partition stand and the AMBER system].
Busch HP; Hartmann J; Freund MC; Lehmann KJ; Georgi M; Richter K
Rofo; 1992 Mar; 156(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 1550921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Quality control phantom for digital chest radiography.
Chotas HG; Floyd CE; Johnson GA; Ravin CE
Radiology; 1997 Jan; 202(1):111-6. PubMed ID: 8988199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Anatomic region-based dynamic range compression for chest radiographs using warping transformation of correlated distribution.
Tsujii O; Freedman MT; Mun SK
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1998 Jun; 17(3):407-18. PubMed ID: 9735904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Effect of exposure variation on the clinical utility of chest radiographs.
Slone RM; Van Metter R; Senol E; Muka E; Pilgram TK
Radiology; 1996 May; 199(2):497-504. PubMed ID: 8668802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography: automated detection of pneumothorax in chest images.
Sanada S; Doi K; MacMahon H
Med Phys; 1992; 19(5):1153-60. PubMed ID: 1435592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Dose and perceived image quality in chest radiography.
Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Geleijns J
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Nov; 72(2):209-17. PubMed ID: 19577393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. To repeat or not to repeat: Radiologists demonstrated more decisiveness than their fellow radiographers in reducing the repeat rate during mobile chest radiography.
Saade C; Siblini L; Karout L; Khalife S; Hilal H; Abbas S; Salman R; Naffaa L
Radiography (Lond); 2021 May; 27(2):304-309. PubMed ID: 33023812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Prototype system for enhancement of frontal chest radiographs using eigenimage processing.
Butler A; Bones P; Hurrell M
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2008 Jun; 52(3):244-53. PubMed ID: 18477119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Reduced radiation exposure of the female breast during low-dose chest CT using organ-based tube current modulation and a bismuth shield: comparison of image quality and radiation dose.
Kim YK; Sung YM; Choi JH; Kim EY; Kim HS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Mar; 200(3):537-44. PubMed ID: 23436842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. [Comparative evaluation of six different body regions of the dog using analog and digital radiography].
Meyer-Lindenberg A; Ebermaier C; Wolvekamp P; Tellhelm B; Meutstege FJ; Lang J; Hartung K; Fehr M; Nolte I
Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2008; 121(5-6):216-27. PubMed ID: 18557526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. Temporal subtraction in chest radiography: automated assessment of registration accuracy.
Armato SG; Doshi DJ; Engelmann R; Croteau CL; MacMahon H
Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1239-49. PubMed ID: 16752558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Efficacy of digital radiography for the detection of pneumothorax: comparison with conventional chest radiography.
Elam EA; Rehm K; Hillman BJ; Maloney K; Fajardo LL; McNeill K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Mar; 158(3):509-14. PubMed ID: 1738985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: part of image background acting as pure noise.
Båth M; Håkansson M; Börjesson S; Kheddache S; Grahn A; Bochud FO; Verdun FR; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):102-8. PubMed ID: 15933089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Automated quality assessment of chest radiographs based on deep learning and linear regression cascade algorithms.
Meng Y; Ruan J; Yang B; Gao Y; Jin J; Dong F; Ji H; He L; Cheng G; Gong X
Eur Radiol; 2022 Nov; 32(11):7680-7690. PubMed ID: 35420306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
