131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36345212)
41. 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]
42. Digital chest radiography image quality assessment with dose reduction.
Grewal RK; Young N; Colins L; Karunnaratne N; Sabharwal N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2012 Mar; 35(1):71-80. PubMed ID: 22302464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging.
Gislason AJ; Davies AG; Cowen AR
Med Phys; 2010 Oct; 37(10):5258-69. PubMed ID: 21089760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. 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]
45. CAN SCATTER CORRECTION SOFTWARE REPLACE A GRID IN DR PELVIC EXAMINATIONS?
Precht H; Mørup SD; Tingberg A; Outzen CB; Kusk KW; Nielsen RM; Midtgård M; Winther MB; Waaler D; Kusk MW
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 187(1):8-16. PubMed ID: 31111927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Impact of a contrast-to-noise ratio driven and material specific exposure control on image quality and radiation exposure in angiography.
Werncke T; Kemling M; Tashenov S; Hinrichs JB; Meine TC; Maschke SK; Kyriakou Y; Wacker FK; Meyer BC
Phys Med Biol; 2021 Mar; 66(6):065020. PubMed ID: 33709957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Radiographers' Ability to Detect Low-Contrast Detail in Digital Radiography Systems.
Alsleem H; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2015; 87(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 26377266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Effect of automatic tube voltage selection on image quality and radiation dose in abdominal CT angiography of various body sizes: a phantom study.
Schindera ST; Winklehner A; Alkadhi H; Goetti R; Fischer M; Gnannt R; Szucs-Farkas Z
Clin Radiol; 2013 Feb; 68(2):e79-86. PubMed ID: 23219454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Evaluation of two objective methods to optimize kVp and personnel exposure using a digital indirect flat panel detector and simulated veterinary patients.
Copple C; Robertson ID; Thrall DE; Samei E
Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2013; 54(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 23293957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. [Relationship between Radiation Quality and Image Quality in Digital Chest Radiography: Validation Study Using Human Soft Tissue-equivalent Phantom].
Kawashima H; Ichikawa K; Kunitomo H
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2021; 77(3):255-262. PubMed ID: 33746173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. 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]
54. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images--comparison with subjective visual assessment.
Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Honey I; Blake P
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(23):5743-57. PubMed ID: 16306665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Comparison of image quality among three X-ray systems for chest radiography: first step in optimisation.
Nocetti D; Ubeda C; Calcagno S; Acevedo J; Pardo D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):386-91. PubMed ID: 25821212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Comparison of image quality between spectral photon-counting CT and dual-layer CT for the evaluation of lung nodules: a phantom study.
Si-Mohamed SA; Greffier J; Miailhes J; Boccalini S; Rodesch PA; Vuillod A; van der Werf N; Dabli D; Racine D; Rotzinger D; Becce F; Yagil Y; Coulon P; Vlassenbroek A; Boussel L; Beregi JP; Douek P
Eur Radiol; 2022 Jan; 32(1):524-532. PubMed ID: 34185147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Optimisation of tube voltage range (kVp) for AP abdomen, pelvis and spine imaging of average patients with a digital radiography (DR) imaging system using a computer simulator.
Moore CS; Wood T; Balcam S; Needler L; Guest T; Ngu WP; Chong LW; Saunderson J; Beavis A
Br J Radiol; 2020 Oct; 93(1114):20200565. PubMed ID: 32783630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Circle of Willis at CT angiography: dose reduction and image quality--reducing tube voltage and increasing tube current settings.
Waaijer A; Prokop M; Velthuis BK; Bakker CJ; de Kort GA; van Leeuwen MS
Radiology; 2007 Mar; 242(3):832-9. PubMed ID: 17229873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. 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]
60. Neonatal chest radiography: Influence of standard clinical protocols and radiographic equipment on pathology visibility and radiation dose using a neonatal chest phantom.
Al-Murshedi S; Peter Hogg ; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Nov; 26(4):282-287. PubMed ID: 32169312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
