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.
110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9140182)
1. Phantoms and automated system for testing the resolution of ultrasound scanners. Rownd JJ; Madsen EL; Zagzebski JA; Frank GR; Dong F Ultrasound Med Biol; 1997; 23(2):245-60. PubMed ID: 9140182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Improved method for determining resolution zones in ultrasound phantoms with spherical simulated lesions. Kofler JM; Madsen EL Ultrasound Med Biol; 2001 Dec; 27(12):1667-76. PubMed ID: 11839411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The automated assessment of ultrasound scanner lateral and slice thickness resolution: use of the step response. Rowland DE; Newey VR; Turner DP; Nassiri DK Ultrasound Med Biol; 2009 Sep; 35(9):1525-34. PubMed ID: 19560252 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Association of automated and human observer lesion detecting ability using phantoms. Kofler JM; Lindstrom MJ; Kelcz F; Madsen EL Ultrasound Med Biol; 2005 Mar; 31(3):351-9. PubMed ID: 15749558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment. Thijssen JM; Weijers G; de Korte CL Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 33(3):460-71. PubMed ID: 17275983 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography. Steiding C; Kolditz D; Kalender WA Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031901. PubMed ID: 24593719 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Spherical lesion phantoms for testing the performance of elastography systems. Madsen EL; Frank GR; Hobson MA; Shi H; Jiang J; Varghese T; Hall TJ Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(24):5983-95. PubMed ID: 16333168 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Low-echo sphere phantoms and methods for assessing imaging performance of medical ultrasound scanners. Madsen EL; Song C; Frank GR Ultrasound Med Biol; 2014 Jul; 40(7):1697-717. PubMed ID: 24768482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Development of a focal lesion phantom with clinically relevant lesion characteristics for image quality evaluation of breast ultrasound scanners. Browne JE; Cannon LM; Fagan AJ; Cournane S Phys Med; 2022 Feb; 94():65-74. PubMed ID: 34998134 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluations of UltraiQ software for objective ultrasound image quality assessment using images from a commercial scanner. Long Z; Tradup DJ; Stekel SF; Gorny KR; Hangiandreou NJ J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 19(2):298-304. PubMed ID: 29336119 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Performance testing of transrectal US scanners. Madsen EL; Zagzebski JA; Medina IR; Frank GR Radiology; 1994 Jan; 190(1):77-80. PubMed ID: 8259432 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. MO-D-218-02: Ultrasound Phantoms in Image Quality Measurements and Performance Assessment. Madsen E Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part21):3870. PubMed ID: 28518253 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ultrasound focal lesion detectability phantoms. Madsen EL; Zagzebski JA; Macdonald MC; Frank GR Med Phys; 1991; 18(6):1171-80. PubMed ID: 1753901 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Automated quality control of ultrasonic B-mode scanners by applying an TMM 3D cyst phantom]. Satrapa J; Schultz HJ; Doblhoff G Ultraschall Med; 2006 Jun; 27(3):262-72. PubMed ID: 16767616 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Design and development of a phantom for tomosynthesis with potential for automated analysis via the cloud. Goodenough D; Levy J; Olafsdottir H; Olafsson I J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 May; 19(3):291-300. PubMed ID: 29508535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Porous phantoms for PET and SPECT performance evaluation and quality assurance. DiFilippo FP; Price JP; Kelsch DN; Muzic RF Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):1183-94. PubMed ID: 15191308 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Implementation and validation of three automated methods for measuring ultrasound maximum depth of penetration: application to ultrasound quality control. Gorny KR; Tradup DJ; Hangiandreou NJ Med Phys; 2005 Aug; 32(8):2615-28. PubMed ID: 16193792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessing the performance of ultrasound imaging systems using images from relatively high-density random spherical void phantoms: A simulation study. Holland MR Med Phys; 2022 Feb; 49(2):878-890. PubMed ID: 34894402 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Small lesion detection with resolution enhancement compression. Linden P; Sanchez JR; Oelze ML Ultrason Imaging; 2010 Jan; 32(1):16-32. PubMed ID: 20690429 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A digital image analysis method for diagnostic ultrasound calibration. Zdero R; Fenton PV; Bryant JT Ultrasonics; 2002 Oct; 39(10):695-702. PubMed ID: 12479601 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]