65 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9849594)
21. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
Klausz R; Shramchenko N
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Management of pediatric radiation dose using GE's Revolution digital radiography systems.
Jabri KN; Uppaluri R; Xue P
Pediatr Radiol; 2004 Oct; 34 Suppl 3():S215-20; discussion S234-41. PubMed ID: 15558264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
Zdesar U
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Investigation of possible methods for equipment self-tests in digital radiology.
Zoetelief J; Idris HH; Jansen JT
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):269-73. PubMed ID: 16461526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Noninvasive imaging of the coronary arteries using a 64-row multidetector CT scanner: initial clinical experience and radiation dose concerns.
Francone M; Napoli A; Carbone I; Cavacece M; Nardis PG; Lanciotti K; Visconti S; Bertoletti L; Di Castro E; Catalano C; Passariello R
Radiol Med; 2007 Feb; 112(1):31-46. PubMed ID: 17310293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation.
Busch HP; Faulkner K
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):143-7. PubMed ID: 16461521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Reduction of patient exposure by the use of digital luminescence radiography].
Seifert H; Chapot C
J Radiol; 1999 Nov; 80(11):1555-60. PubMed ID: 10592912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Dose performance and image quality: dual source CT versus single source CT in cardiac CT angiography.
Wang M; Qi HT; Wang XM; Wang T; Chen JH; Liu C
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Dec; 72(3):396-400. PubMed ID: 18835119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Comparison of input grey values and contrast profiles: a contribution to the discussion on optimization of evaluation parameters in storage phosphorus radiography].
Schätzl M; Fink U
Rofo; 1995 Feb; 162(2):157-62. PubMed ID: 7881084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Exposure creep in computed radiography: a longitudinal study.
Gibson DJ; Davidson RA
Acad Radiol; 2012 Apr; 19(4):458-62. PubMed ID: 22225727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Clinical application of the optimized X-ray parameter model through analysis of disease risk and image quality when combining the ion chamber of automatic exposure control of digital radiography.
Hwang JH; Kim SB; Choi MK; Lee KB; Park CK
J Xray Sci Technol; 2022; 30(6):1099-1114. PubMed ID: 36120755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Detail recognition in the x-ray picture and the limits of possible reduction in radiation dosage].
Gurwitsch AM
Rofo; 1988 Apr; 148(4):444-7. PubMed ID: 2834794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Application of StatPhantom software for image quality evaluation.
Davydenko G; Gurvich V; Smekhov M
J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():219-20. PubMed ID: 12105733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Exposure tracking with digital radiography: how dose conscientious are you?
Bell-Pfeifer A
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(5):576-7. PubMed ID: 24806060
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Technical evaluation of a clinical, bi-planar, digital and upright X-ray imaging unit.
Kelly C; Delakis I
J Med Radiat Sci; 2021 Dec; 68(4):475-481. PubMed ID: 34096199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Response to the article "Comparison of the performance of intraoral X-ray sensors using objective image quality assessment".
Hellén-Halme K; Johansson C; Nilsson M
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 Dec; 122(6):784-785. PubMed ID: 27720654
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Optimising default radiographic exposure factors using Deviation Index.
Creeden A; Curtis M
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Nov; 26(4):308-313. PubMed ID: 32199801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Quantitative Analysis Methods Using Histogram and Entropy for Detector Performance Evaluation According to the Sensitivity Change of the Automatic Exposure Control in Digital Radiography.
Hwang JH; Lee KB; Choi JA; Lee TS
J Med Syst; 2020 Sep; 44(10):183. PubMed ID: 32886270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A mathematical model relating changes of grey values to changes of thicknesses of a stepwedge.
Geha H; Bechara B; Faddoul T; Noujeim M
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(1):50719185. PubMed ID: 22842639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
