131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36345212)
21. Digital radiography: optimization of image quality and dose using multi-frequency software.
Precht H; Gerke O; Rosendahl K; Tingberg A; Waaler D
Pediatr Radiol; 2012 Sep; 42(9):1112-8. PubMed ID: 22526280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. PATIENT DOSE ASSESSMENT AND OPTIMISATION OF PELVIC RADIOGRAPHY WITH COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS.
Abbeyquaye D; Inkoom S; Hammond NB; Fletcher JJ; Botwe BO
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 Aug; 195(1):41-49. PubMed ID: 34320643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Effective dose and image optimisation of lateral lumbar spine radiography: a phantom study.
Lai ZH; Sá Dos Reis C; Sun Z
Eur Radiol Exp; 2020 Feb; 4(1):13. PubMed ID: 32056045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Correlation between physical measurements and observer evaluations of image quality in digital chest radiography.
Yalcin A; Olgar T; Sancak T; Atac GK; Akyar S
Med Phys; 2020 Sep; 47(9):3935-3944. PubMed ID: 32427360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effective dose efficiency: an application-specific metric of quality and dose for digital radiography.
Samei E; Ranger NT; Dobbins JT; Ravin CE
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Aug; 56(16):5099-118. PubMed ID: 21775791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Effects of kV, filtration, dose, and object size on soft tissue and iodine contrast in dedicated breast CT.
Hernandez AM; Abbey CK; Ghazi P; Burkett G; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2020 Jul; 47(7):2869-2880. PubMed ID: 32233091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A novel method for comparing radiation dose and image quality, between and within different x-ray units in a series of hospitals.
Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; Lanca L; England A
J Radiol Prot; 2018 Dec; 38(4):1344-1358. PubMed ID: 30251707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and effective dose using four digital systems.
Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Mackenzie A; Tabakov S; Lewis CA
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):273-7. PubMed ID: 15933121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. OPTIMIZING IMAGE QUALITY, RADIATION DOSAGE TO THE PATIENT AND TO THE DETECTOR IN PEDIATRIC CHEST RADIOGRAPHY: A PHANTOM STUDY OF A PORTABLE DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM.
Shahgeldi K; Sjöberg T; Nordström J; Lesanu R; Svahn TM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(4):414-420. PubMed ID: 30916753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. The influence of a novel edge enhancement software on image quality of DR hand images of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Outzen CB; Maron D; Nissen J; Munk J; Grau LM; Juhl D; Precht H
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Aug; 27(3):877-882. PubMed ID: 33676836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Technical note: Design and initial evaluation of a novel physical breast phantom to monitor image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis.
Fitton I; Noël A; Minassian J; Zerhouni M; Wojak J; Adel M; Fournier L
Med Phys; 2022 Apr; 49(4):2355-2365. PubMed ID: 35100445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Can the anode heel effect be used to optimise radiation dose and image quality for AP pelvis radiography?
Mraity HAAB; Walton L; England A; Thompson J; Lanca L; Hogg P
Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):e103-e108. PubMed ID: 32052763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Toward standardized quantitative image quality (IQ) assessment in computed tomography (CT): A comprehensive framework for automated and comparative IQ analysis based on ICRU Report 87.
Pahn G; Skornitzke S; Schlemmer HP; Kauczor HU; Stiller W
Phys Med; 2016 Jan; 32(1):104-15. PubMed ID: 26520485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison of a contrast-to-noise ratio-driven exposure control and a regular detector dose-driven exposure control in abdominal imaging in a clinical angiography system.
Werncke T; Kemling M; Tashenov S; Hinrichs JB; Meine TC; Maschke SK; Kyriakou Y; Wacker FK; Meyer BC
Med Phys; 2021 Dec; 48(12):7641-7656. PubMed ID: 34651705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of automatic image quality assessment in chest CT - A human cadaver study.
Franck C; De Crop A; De Roo B; Smeets P; Vergauwen M; Dewaele T; Van Borsel M; Achten E; Van Hoof T; Bacher K
Phys Med; 2017 Apr; 36():32-37. PubMed ID: 28410683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
