These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26389637)
1. On the relationship of minimum detectable contrast to dose and lesion size in abdominal CT. Zhou Y; Scott A; Allahverdian J; Lee C; Kightlinger B; Azizyan A; Miller J Phys Med Biol; 2015 Oct; 60(19):7671-94. PubMed ID: 26389637 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Consistent low-contrast detectability for variable patient sizes and corresponding dose in abdominal CT. Zhou Y; Nute J; Scott A; Lee C Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 44(3):861-872. PubMed ID: 28039857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dose and blending fraction quantification for adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction based on low-contrast detectability in abdomen CT. Zhou Y J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2020 Feb; 21(2):128-135. PubMed ID: 31898865 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of low-contrast detectability between two CT reconstruction algorithms using voxel-based 3D printed textured phantoms. Solomon J; Ba A; Bochud F; Samei E Med Phys; 2016 Dec; 43(12):6497. PubMed ID: 27908164 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of various generations of iterative CT reconstruction algorithms on low-contrast detectability as a function of the effective abdominal diameter: A quantitative task-based phantom study. Viry A; Aberle C; Racine D; Knebel JF; Schindera ST; Schmidt S; Becce F; Verdun FR Phys Med; 2018 Apr; 48():111-118. PubMed ID: 29728223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. CT head-scan dosimetry in an anthropomorphic phantom and associated measurement of ACR accreditation-phantom imaging metrics under clinically representative scan conditions. Brunner CC; Stern SH; Minniti R; Parry MI; Skopec M; Chakrabarti K Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081917. PubMed ID: 23927331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Radiation dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography during the late hepatic arterial phase using a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm: how low can we go? Husarik DB; Marin D; Samei E; Richard S; Chen B; Jaffe TA; Bashir MR; Nelson RC Invest Radiol; 2012 Aug; 47(8):468-74. PubMed ID: 22717881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of hybrid and pure iterative reconstruction techniques with conventional filtered back projection: dose reduction potential in the abdomen. Singh S; Kalra MK; Do S; Thibault JB; Pien H; O'Connor OJ; Blake MA J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2012; 36(3):347-53. PubMed ID: 22592622 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of radiation dose and image quality of computed tomography images using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction. Hussain FA; Mail N; Shamy AM; Suliman A; Saoudi A J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 May; 17(3):419-432. PubMed ID: 27167261 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Volumetry of low-contrast liver lesions with CT: Investigation of estimation uncertainties in a phantom study. Li Q; Liang Y; Huang Q; Zong M; Berman B; Gavrielides MA; Schwartz LH; Zhao B; Petrick N Med Phys; 2016 Dec; 43(12):6608. PubMed ID: 27908157 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparative study based on image quality and clinical task performance for CT reconstruction algorithms in radiotherapy. Li H; Dolly S; Chen HC; Anastasio MA; Low DA; Li HH; Michalski JM; Thorstad WL; Gay H; Mutic S J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Jul; 17(4):377-390. PubMed ID: 27455472 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Iterative image-domain decomposition for dual-energy CT. Niu T; Dong X; Petrongolo M; Zhu L Med Phys; 2014 Apr; 41(4):041901. PubMed ID: 24694132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Technical Note: Evaluation of a 160-mm/256-row CT scanner for whole-heart quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging. So A; Imai Y; Nett B; Jackson J; Nett L; Hsieh J; Wisenberg G; Teefy P; Yadegari A; Islam A; Lee TY Med Phys; 2016 Aug; 43(8):4821. PubMed ID: 27487900 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Size-specific optimization of CT protocols based on minimum detectability. Zhang Y; Smitherman C; Samei E Med Phys; 2017 Apr; 44(4):1301-1311. PubMed ID: 28122119 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Noise suppression for dual-energy CT via penalized weighted least-square optimization with similarity-based regularization. Harms J; Wang T; Petrongolo M; Niu T; Zhu L Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2676. PubMed ID: 27147376 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reducing CT radiation dose with iterative reconstruction algorithms: the influence of scan and reconstruction parameters on image quality and CTDIvol. Klink T; Obmann V; Heverhagen J; Stork A; Adam G; Begemann P Eur J Radiol; 2014 Sep; 83(9):1645-54. PubMed ID: 25037931 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Third version of vendor-specific model-based iterativereconstruction (Veo 3.0): evaluation of CT image quality in the abdomen using new noise reduction presets and varied slice optimization. Telesmanich ME; Jensen CT; Enriquez JL; Wagner-Bartak NA; Liu X; Le O; Wei W; Chandler AG; Tamm EP Br J Radiol; 2017 Aug; 90(1077):20170188. PubMed ID: 28707531 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Hybrid iterative reconstruction technique for abdominal CT protocols in obese patients: assessment of image quality, radiation dose, and low-contrast detectability in a phantom. Schindera ST; Odedra D; Mercer D; Thipphavong S; Chou P; Szucs-Farkas Z; Rogalla P AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):W146-52. PubMed ID: 24450696 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Automated development of the contrast-detail curve based on statistical low-contrast detectability in CT images. Anam C; Naufal A; Fujibuchi T; Matsubara K; Dougherty G J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2022 Sep; 23(9):e13719. PubMed ID: 35808971 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Image comparative assessment using iterative reconstructions: clinical comparison of low-dose abdominal/pelvic computed tomography between adaptive statistical, model-based iterative reconstructions and traditional filtered back projection in 65 patients. Vardhanabhuti V; Riordan RD; Mitchell GR; Hyde C; Roobottom CA Invest Radiol; 2014 Apr; 49(4):209-16. PubMed ID: 24368613 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]