These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
2. Medical imaging correction: a comparative study of five contrast and brightness matching methods. Matsopoulos GK Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2012 Jun; 106(3):308-27. PubMed ID: 21496940 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Methods in quantitative image analysis. Oberholzer M; Ostreicher M; Christen H; Brühlmann M Histochem Cell Biol; 1996 May; 105(5):333-55. PubMed ID: 8781988 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of three contrast correction methods for digital subtraction in dental radiography: an in vitro study. Likar B; Pernus F Med Phys; 1997 Feb; 24(2):299-307. PubMed ID: 9048371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A contrast correction method for dental images based on histogram registration. Economopoulos TL; Asvestas PA; Matsopoulos GK; Gröndahl K; Gröndahl HG Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Jul; 39(5):300-13. PubMed ID: 20587655 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after application of various image processing algorithms. Alpöz E; Soğur E; Baksi Akdeniz BG Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):490-4. PubMed ID: 18033946 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A new method for the automated alignment of dental radiographs for digital subtraction radiography. Yoon DC Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 10654031 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of intraoral radiographs: a comparison between four methods of geometric alignment. Kozakiewicz M; Bogusiak K; Hanclik M; Denkowski M; Arkuszewski P Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jan; 37(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 18195254 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A robust generalized fuzzy operator approach to film contrast correction in digital subtraction radiography. Leung CC Med Biol Eng Comput; 2006 Mar; 44(1-2):95-104. PubMed ID: 16929926 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sensitometric response of the Sens-A-Ray, a charge-coupled imaging device, to changes in beam energy. Goshima T; Goshima Y; Scarfe WC; Farman AG Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Jan; 25(1):17-8. PubMed ID: 9084280 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quantitative subtraction with direct digital dental radiography. Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H; Sasaki T Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Sep; 26(5):286-94. PubMed ID: 9482001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Registration of dental radiographs using projective geometry. Ostuni J; Fisher E; van der Stelt P; Dunn S Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 Nov; 22(4):199-203. PubMed ID: 8181647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Contrast matching techniques for digital subtraction radiography: an objective evaluation. Likar B; Bernard R; Pernus F Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp; 1996; ():294-8. PubMed ID: 8947675 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical efficacy of a new software developed for dental digital subtraction radiography. Güneri P; Gögüs S; Tuğsel Z; Ozturk A; Gungor C; Boyacioğlu H Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Nov; 35(6):417-21. PubMed ID: 17082332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response. Li G; Welander U; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; McDavid WD Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):372-8. PubMed ID: 15070839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital image processing. I. Evaluation of gray level correction methods in vitro. Fourmousis I; Brägger U; Bürgin W; Tonetti M; Lang NP Clin Oral Implants Res; 1994 Mar; 5(1):37-47. PubMed ID: 8038343 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficient x-ray image enhancement algorithm using image fusion. Shen K; Wen Y; Cai Y J Xray Sci Technol; 2009; 17(3):207-20. PubMed ID: 19893213 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]