136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36321326)
1. Impact of flexible noise control (FNC) image processing parameters on portable chest radiography.
Kirby KM; Ren L; Daly TR; Tandon YK; Bartholmai BJ; Schueler BA; Long Z
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2022 Dec; 23(12):e13812. PubMed ID: 36321326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Development of a chest digital tomosynthesis R/F system and implementation of low-dose GPU-accelerated compressed sensing (CS) image reconstruction.
Choi S; Lee H; Lee D; Choi S; Lee CL; Kwon W; Shin J; Seo CW; Kim HJ
Med Phys; 2018 May; 45(5):1871-1888. PubMed ID: 29500855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A technique for simulating the effect of dose reduction on image quality in digital chest radiography.
Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; van Delft JP; Geleijns J
J Digit Imaging; 2009 Apr; 22(2):114-25. PubMed ID: 18259814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Pediatric thoracic CT angiography at 70 kV: a phantom study to investigate the effects on image quality and radiation dose.
MacDougall RD; Kleinman PL; Yu L; Lee EY
Pediatr Radiol; 2016 Jul; 46(8):1114-9. PubMed ID: 26987734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of scatter rejection and low-contrast performance of scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR), slot-scan digital radiography, and full-field digital radiography systems for chest phantom imaging.
Liu X; Shaw CC; Lai CJ; Wang T
Med Phys; 2011 Jan; 38(1):23-33. PubMed ID: 21361171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Ultra-high pitch chest computed tomography at 70 kVp tube voltage in an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom and non-sedated pediatric patients: Initial experience with 3
Hagelstein C; Henzler T; Haubenreisser H; Meyer M; Sudarski S; Schoenberg SO; Neff KW; Weis M
Z Med Phys; 2016 Dec; 26(4):349-361. PubMed ID: 26702762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Image feature index: A novel metric for quantifying chest radiographic image quality.
Liang Z; Tang J; Xu P; Zeng W; Zhang J; Zhang Y; Zeng L; Wang H; Xia C; Li Z
Med Phys; 2023 May; 50(5):2805-2815. PubMed ID: 36606328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Image processing setting adaptions according to image dose and radiologist preference can improve image quality in computed radiography of the equine distal limb: A cadaveric study.
Seeber M; Lederer KA; Rowan C; Strohmayer C; Ludewig E
Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2024 Jan; 65(1):19-30. PubMed ID: 38098240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: a comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems.
Sun Z; Lin C; Tyan Y; Ng KH
Clin Imaging; 2012; 36(4):279-86. PubMed ID: 22726965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The reduction of image noise and streak artifact in the thoracic inlet during low dose and ultra-low dose thoracic CT.
Paul NS; Blobel J; Prezelj E; Burey P; Ursani A; Menezes RJ; Kashani H; Siewerdsen JH
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Mar; 55(5):1363-80. PubMed ID: 20145292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A dual-view digital tomosynthesis imaging technique for improved chest imaging.
Zhong Y; Lai CJ; Wang T; Shaw CC
Med Phys; 2015 Sep; 42(9):5238-51. PubMed ID: 26328973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Distributions of scatter-to-primary and signal-to-noise ratios per pixel in digital chest imaging.
Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Hunt R; Alm Carlsson G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):355-8. PubMed ID: 15933136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Image quality and dose differences caused by vendor-specific image processing of neonatal radiographs.
Sensakovic WF; O'Dell MC; Letter H; Kohler N; Rop B; Cook J; Logsdon G; Varich L
Pediatr Radiol; 2016 Oct; 46(11):1606-13. PubMed ID: 27488507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluating radiographic parameters for mobile chest computed radiography: phantoms, image quality and effective dose.
Rill LN; Brateman L; Arreola M
Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2727-35. PubMed ID: 14596311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Anthropomorphic versus geometric chest phantoms: a comparison of scatter properties.
Baydush AH; Ghem WC; Floyd CE
Med Phys; 2000 May; 27(5):894-7. PubMed ID: 10841391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Characterizing Scatter Correction Software of 5 Mobile Radiography Units: An Anthropomorphic Phantom Study.
Gossye T; Buytaert D; Smeets PV; Morbée L; Vereecke E; Achten E; Bacher K
Invest Radiol; 2022 Jul; 57(7):444-452. PubMed ID: 35085123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography.
Doyle P; Martin CJ; Gentle D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):269-72. PubMed ID: 15933120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Bayesian image estimation of digital chest radiography: interdependence of noise, resolution, and scatter fraction.
Baydush AH; Floyd CE
Med Phys; 1995 Aug; 22(8):1255-61. PubMed ID: 7476711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
