136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31481182)
21. Visual grading analysis of digital neonatal chest phantom X-ray images: Impact of detector type, dose and image processing on image quality.
Smet MH; Breysem L; Mussen E; Bosmans H; Marshall NW; Cockmartin L
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jul; 28(7):2951-2959. PubMed ID: 29460076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Assessment of Image Quality in Digital Radiographs Submitted for Hip Dysplasia Screening.
Moorman L; Precht H; Jensen J; Svalastoga E; Nielsen DH; Proschowsky HF; McEvoy FJ
Front Vet Sci; 2019; 6():428. PubMed ID: 31850383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Survey of chest radiography systems: Any link between contrast detail measurements and visual grading analysis?
Rodríguez Pérez S; Marshall NW; Binst J; Coolen J; Struelens L; Bosmans H
Phys Med; 2020 Aug; 76():62-71. PubMed ID: 32599376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Relationship between the visual evaluation of pathology visibility and the physical measure of low contrast detail detectability in neonatal chest radiography.
Al-Murshedi S; Benhalim M; Alzyoud K; Papathanasiou S; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2022 Nov; 28(4):1116-1121. PubMed ID: 36099681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Evaluation of Virtual Grid Processed Clinical Chest Radiographs.
Gossye T; Buytaert D; Smeets PV; Morbée L; De Wilde C; Vermeiren K; Achten E; Bacher K
Invest Radiol; 2022 Sep; 57(9):585-591. PubMed ID: 35438670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Diagnostic imaging--evaluating image quality using visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis.
Ludewig E; Richter A; Frame M
Vet Res Commun; 2010 Jun; 34(5):473-9. PubMed ID: 20461455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images of the lumbar spine - an intra- and inter-observer reproducibility study.
Doktor K; Vilholm ML; Hardardóttir A; Christensen HW; Lauritsen J
Chiropr Man Therap; 2019; 27():20. PubMed ID: 31069046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS.
Precht H; Outzen CB; Kusk MW; Bisgaard M; Waaler D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 May; 194(1):27-35. PubMed ID: 33969425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparison of image quality in chest, hip and pelvis examinations between mobile equipment in nursing homes and static indirect radiography equipment in the hospital.
Precht H; Hansen DL; Ring-Pedersen BM; Møller Hansen LF; Waaler D; Tingberg A; Midtgaard M; Jensen Ohlsen MG; Juhl Hankelbjerg ST; Ravn P; Jensen IE; Christensen JK; Blackburn Andersen PA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):e31-e37. PubMed ID: 32052778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Digital chest radiography--optimizing image processing parameters for the visibility of chest lesions and anatomy.
Kheddache S; Denbratt L; Angelhed JE
Eur J Radiol; 1996 Jun; 22(3):241-5. PubMed ID: 8832241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography.
Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; England A
Br J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 91(1089):20180317. PubMed ID: 29906239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of unenhanced axial T1W and T2W liver MR images acquired from institutions within the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Al-Dahery S; McGee A; Rainford L; Khashoggi K; Misha N
Radiography (Lond); 2019 May; 25(2):e45-e51. PubMed ID: 30955698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Visual grading regression: analysing data from visual grading experiments with regression models.
Smedby O; Fredrikson M
Br J Radiol; 2010 Sep; 83(993):767-75. PubMed ID: 20223912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Correlation of contrast-detail analysis and clinical image quality assessment in chest radiography with a human cadaver study.
De Crop A; Bacher K; Van Hoof T; Smeets PV; Smet BS; Vergauwen M; Kiendys U; Duyck P; Verstraete K; D'Herde K; Thierens H
Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):298-304. PubMed ID: 22056687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector.
Geijer H; Persliden J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):240-5. PubMed ID: 15933115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Inter-observer variation in masked and unmasked images for quality evaluation of clinical radiographs.
Tingberg A; Eriksson F; Medin J; Besjakov J; Båth M; Håkansson M; Sandborg M; Almén A; Lanhede B; Alm-Carlsson G; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):62-8. PubMed ID: 15933082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of a digital workstation for interpreting neonatal examinations. A receiver operating characteristic study.
Franken EA; Berbaum KS; Marley SM; Smith WL; Sato Y; Kao SC; Milam SG
Invest Radiol; 1992 Sep; 27(9):732-7. PubMed ID: 1399457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of anatomical noise.
Båth M; Håkansson M; Börjesson S; Hoeschen C; Tischenko O; Kheddache S; Vikgren J; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):109-13. PubMed ID: 15933090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
