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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

158 related items for PubMed ID: 29906239

  • 41. A new automated assessment method for contrast-detail images by applying support vector machine and its robustness to nonlinear image processing.
    Takei T, Ikeda M, Imai K, Yamauchi-Kawaura C, Kato K, Isoda H.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2013 Sep; 36(3):313-22. PubMed ID: 23955765
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 42. A systematic approach towards the objective evaluation of low-contrast performance in MDCT: combination of a full-reference image fidelity metric and a software phantom.
    von Falck C, Rodt T, Waldeck S, Hartung D, Meyer B, Wacker F, Shin HO.
    Eur J Radiol; 2012 Nov; 81(11):3166-71. PubMed ID: 22748556
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 43. Radiographers' Ability to Detect Low-Contrast Detail in Digital Radiography Systems.
    Alsleem H, Davidson R.
    Radiol Technol; 2015 Nov; 87(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 26377266
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 44. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages.
    Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Ullman G, Dance DR, Alm Carlsson G.
    Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4169-75. PubMed ID: 17153395
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 45. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector.
    Geijer H, Persliden J.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Nov; 114(1-3):240-5. PubMed ID: 15933115
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 46. Automatic quantitative low contrast analysis of digital chest phantom radiographs.
    Kwan AL, Filipow LJ, Le LH.
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):312-20. PubMed ID: 12674230
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 47. 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 Mar; 36(4):279-86. PubMed ID: 22726965
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 48. Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.
    Tsalafoutas IA, AlKhazzam S, Tsapaki V, Kharita MH.
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2024 Apr; 25(4):e14285. PubMed ID: 38317593
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 49. Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector.
    Geijer H, Norrman E, Persliden J.
    Br J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 82(973):62-8. PubMed ID: 19095816
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 50. Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography.
    Doyle P, Martin CJ, Gentle D.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Jan; 114(1-3):269-72. PubMed ID: 15933120
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 51. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 52. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
    Thomas JA, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek R, Romanyukha A.
    Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 53. Quality control phantom for digital chest radiography.
    Chotas HG, Floyd CE, Johnson GA, Ravin CE.
    Radiology; 1997 Jan; 202(1):111-6. PubMed ID: 8988199
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 54. Evaluation of Virtual Grid Processed Clinical Chest Radiographs.
    Gossye T, Buytaert D, Smeets PV, Morbée L, De Wilde C, Vermeiren K, Achten E, Bacher K.
    Invest Radiol; 2022 Sep 01; 57(9):585-591. PubMed ID: 35438670
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 55. Pediatric thoracic CT angiography at 70 kV: a phantom study to investigate the effects on image quality and radiation dose.
    MacDougall RD, Kleinman PL, Yu L, Lee EY.
    Pediatr Radiol; 2016 Jul 01; 46(8):1114-9. PubMed ID: 26987734
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 56.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 57. COMPARISON OF WIRELESS DETECTORS FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS: IMAGE QUALITY AND DOSE.
    Mourik JE, van der Tol P, Veldkamp WJ, Geleijns J.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2016 Jun 01; 169(1-4):303-7. PubMed ID: 26535003
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 58. Assessment and optimisation of the image quality of chest-radiography systems.
    Redlich U, Hoeschen C, Doehring W.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Jun 01; 114(1-3):264-8. PubMed ID: 15933119
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 59. Evaluation of a new system for chest tomosynthesis: aspects of image quality of different protocols determined using an anthropomorphic phantom.
    Jadidi M, Sundin A, Aspelin P, Båth M, Nyrén S.
    Br J Radiol; 2015 Sep 01; 88(1053):20150057. PubMed ID: 26118300
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 60. A method to optimize the processing algorithm of a computed radiography system for chest radiography.
    Moore CS, Liney GP, Beavis AW, Saunderson JR.
    Br J Radiol; 2007 Sep 01; 80(957):724-30. PubMed ID: 17709364
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.