135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38277389)
1. Inter- and intra-rater reproducibility of quantitative T1 measurement using semiautomatic region of interest placement in myometrium.
Nakagawa S; Uno T; Ishitoya S; Takabayashi E; Oya A; Kubota W; Okizaki A
PLoS One; 2024; 19(1):e0297402. PubMed ID: 38277389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis.
Heye T; Merkle EM; Reiner CS; Davenport MS; Horvath JJ; Feuerlein S; Breault SR; Gall P; Bashir MR; Dale BM; Kiraly AP; Boll DT
Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):812-21. PubMed ID: 23220891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Semiautomatic determination of arterial input functions for quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Chung J; Kim JH; Lee EJ; Kim YN; Yi CA
Invest Radiol; 2015 Mar; 50(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 25369854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the anterior mediastinum: inter-observer reproducibility of five different methods of region-of-interest positioning.
Priola AM; Priola SM; Parlatano D; Gned D; Giraudo MT; Giardino R; Ferrero B; Ardissone F; Veltri A
Eur Radiol; 2017 Apr; 27(4):1386-1394. PubMed ID: 27516357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values.
Bickel H; Pinker K; Polanec S; Magometschnigg H; Wengert G; Spick C; Bogner W; Bago-Horvath Z; Helbich TH; Baltzer P
Eur Radiol; 2017 May; 27(5):1883-1892. PubMed ID: 27578047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging measurements in renal cell carcinoma: effect of region of interest size and positioning on interobserver and intraobserver variability.
Braunagel M; Radler E; Ingrisch M; Staehler M; Schmid-Tannwald C; Rist C; Nikolaou K; Reiser MF; Notohamiprodjo M
Invest Radiol; 2015 Jan; 50(1):57-66. PubMed ID: 25260094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Inter- and intra-rater reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using TWIST perfusion data in a uterine fibroid model.
Davenport MS; Heye T; Dale BM; Horvath JJ; Breault SR; Feuerlein S; Bashir MR; Boll DT; Merkle EM
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2013 Aug; 38(2):329-35. PubMed ID: 23239041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Improved T2* assessment in liver iron overload by magnetic resonance imaging.
Positano V; Salani B; Pepe A; Santarelli MF; De Marchi D; Ramazzotti A; Favilli B; Cracolici E; Midiri M; Cianciulli P; Lombardi M; Landini L
Magn Reson Imaging; 2009 Feb; 27(2):188-97. PubMed ID: 18667287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Measurement accuracy and reproducibility of semiautomated metric and volumetric lymph node analysis in MDCT.
Buerke B; Puesken M; Müter S; Weckesser M; Gerss J; Heindel W; Wessling J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Oct; 195(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 20858828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Are pancreatic IPMN volumes measured on MRI images more reproducible than diameters? An assessment in a large single-institution cohort.
Pandey P; Pandey A; Varzaneh FN; Ghasabeh MA; Fouladi D; Khoshpouri P; Shao N; Zarghampour M; Hruban RH; Canto M; O'Broin-Lennon AM; Kamel IR
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jul; 28(7):2790-2800. PubMed ID: 29404774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The use of inversion mode and 3D manual segmentation in volume measurement of fetal fluid-filled structures: comparison with Virtual Organ Computer-aided AnaLysis (VOCAL).
Kusanovic JP; Nien JK; Gonçalves LF; Espinoza J; Lee W; Balasubramaniam M; Soto E; Erez O; Romero R
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Feb; 31(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 18254130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Semiautomatic quantification of carotid plaque volume with three-dimensional ultrasound imaging.
Khan AA; Koudelka C; Goldstein C; Zhao L; Yokemick J; Dux M; Sikdar S; Lal BK
J Vasc Surg; 2017 May; 65(5):1407-1417. PubMed ID: 28274755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Liver segmentation in living liver transplant donors: comparison of semiautomatic and manual methods.
Hermoye L; Laamari-Azjal I; Cao Z; Annet L; Lerut J; Dawant BM; Van Beers BE
Radiology; 2005 Jan; 234(1):171-8. PubMed ID: 15564393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Repeatability and reproducibility of variable flip angle T
Zhong X; Shakeri S; Liu D; Sayre J; Raman SS; Wu HH; Sung K
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2019 Jun; 49(6):1730-1735. PubMed ID: 30548513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Inter- and intraobserver variability in the evaluation of dynamic breast cancer MRI.
Beresford MJ; Padhani AR; Taylor NJ; Ah-See ML; Stirling JJ; Makris A; d'Arcy JA; Collins DJ
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2006 Dec; 24(6):1316-25. PubMed ID: 17058203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Diagnostic Accuracy of 4 Commercially Available Semiautomatic Packages for Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement on CTA.
Borst J; Marquering HA; Kappelhof M; Zadi T; van Dijk AC; Nederkoorn PJ; van den Berg R; van der Lugt A; Majoie CB
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2015 Oct; 36(10):1978-87. PubMed ID: 26251425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reproducibility of deriving parameters of AAA rupture risk from patient-specific 3D finite element models.
Hyhlik-Dürr A; Krieger T; Geisbüsch P; Kotelis D; Able T; Böckler D
J Endovasc Ther; 2011 Jun; 18(3):289-98. PubMed ID: 21679063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Personalized maps of T1 relaxometry abnormalities provide correlates of disability in multiple sclerosis patients.
Chen X; Schädelin S; Lu PJ; Ocampo-Pineda M; Weigel M; Barakovic M; Ruberte E; Cagol A; Marechal B; Kober T; Kuhle J; Kappos L; Melie-Garcia L; Granziera C
Neuroimage Clin; 2023; 37():103349. PubMed ID: 36801600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cerebral blood volume analysis in glioblastomas using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: a comparison of manual and semiautomatic segmentation methods.
Jung SC; Choi SH; Yeom JA; Kim JH; Ryoo I; Kim SC; Shin H; Lee AL; Yun TJ; Park CK; Sohn CH; Park SH
PLoS One; 2013; 8(8):e69323. PubMed ID: 23950891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Manual versus semiautomatic segmentation of soft-tissue sarcomas on magnetic resonance imaging: evaluation of similarity and comparison of segmentation times.
Dionisio FCF; Oliveira LS; Hernandes MA; Engel EE; de Azevedo-Marques PM; Nogueira-Barbosa MH
Radiol Bras; 2021; 54(3):155-164. PubMed ID: 34108762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
