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.
163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31429771)
1. Development of a zoomorphic test specimen for constancy testing on digital X-ray systems in veterinary radiology. Pöhlmann G; Lüpke M; Seiler C; Wefstaedt P; Bach JP; Nolte I; Seifert H Acta Vet Scand; 2019 Aug; 61(1):40. PubMed ID: 31429771 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system. Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Comparison of the image quality of conventional and digital radiography in lizards. Mammography technique versus digital detector system]. Bochmann M; Ludewig E; Pees M Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere; 2011; 39(4):259-67. PubMed ID: 22143664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. X-ray dark-field chest radiography: a reader study to evaluate the diagnostic quality of attenuation chest X-rays from a dual-contrast scanning prototype. Kattau M; Willer K; Noichl W; Urban T; Frank M; De Marco F; Schick R; Koehler T; Maack HI; Renger B; Renz M; Sauter A; Leonhardt Y; Fingerle A; Makowski M; Pfeiffer D; Pfeiffer F Eur Radiol; 2023 Aug; 33(8):5549-5556. PubMed ID: 36806571 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Association between subjective evaluation and physical parameters for radiographic images optimization. Alves AF; Alvarez M; Ribeiro SM; Duarte SB; Miranda JR; Pina DR Phys Med; 2016 Jan; 32(1):123-32. PubMed ID: 26573131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography. Gkanatsios NA; Huda W; Peters KR Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1643-50. PubMed ID: 12201409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Optimization of exposure in panoramic radiography while maintaining image quality using adaptive filtering. Svenson B; Larsson L; Båth M Acta Odontol Scand; 2016; 74(3):229-35. PubMed ID: 26478956 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging. Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Automatic exposure control in multichannel CT with tube current modulation to achieve a constant level of image noise: experimental assessment on pediatric phantoms. Brisse HJ; Madec L; Gaboriaud G; Lemoine T; Savignoni A; Neuenschwander S; Aubert B; Rosenwald JC Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):3018-33. PubMed ID: 17822010 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. Suitability of the general-purpose graphic printer as an image output device for digital dental x-ray images. Nishikawa K; Wakoh M; Kuroyanagi K Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Mar; 89(3):382-7. PubMed ID: 10710467 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography. Molander B; Gröndahl HG; Ekestubbe A Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 15140820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Forensic oral imaging quality of hand-held dental X-ray devices: comparison of two image receptors and two devices. Pittayapat P; Thevissen P; Fieuws S; Jacobs R; Willems G Forensic Sci Int; 2010 Jan; 194(1-3):20-7. PubMed ID: 19913377 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. International Commission on Radiological Protection Ann ICRP; 2004; 34(1):1-73. PubMed ID: 15302167 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography. Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Investigation of possible methods for equipment self-tests in digital radiology. Zoetelief J; Idris HH; Jansen JT Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):269-73. PubMed ID: 16461526 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Body size and tube voltage-dependent guiding equations for optimal selection of image acquisition parameters in clinical X-ray imaging. Zheng X Radiol Phys Technol; 2018 Jun; 11(2):212-218. PubMed ID: 29667102 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Development of a 3D printed anthropomorphic lung phantom for image quality assessment in CT. Hernandez-Giron I; den Harder JM; Streekstra GJ; Geleijns J; Veldkamp WJH Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():47-57. PubMed ID: 30738531 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Radiation dose and image quality in diagnostic radiology. Optimization of the dose-image quality relationship with clinical experience from scoliosis radiography, coronary intervention and a flat-panel digital detector. Geijer H Acta Radiol Suppl; 2002 Mar; 43(427):1-43. PubMed ID: 12108231 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of single-phase and high-frequency generators for x-ray units. Barthez PY; Manwaring N; Mitelmann PH; Benoit E Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2002; 43(2):118-22. PubMed ID: 11954806 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]