Presentation of Digital Radiographic Systems and the Quality Control Procedures that Currently Followed by Various Organizations Worldwide~!2009-12-09~!2010-02-17~!2010-06-24~!

Lyra, Maria; Kordolaimi, Sofia; Salvara, Aikaterini-Lampro N.

doi:10.2174/1877613201002010005

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ESD is the skin dose at the point of intersection of the X-ray beam. Unlike AK, the ESD includes all scatter radiation, thought to contribute to approximately 27 -45% of the skin dose [33] . The E is used to describe the detrimental effects of radiation exposure upon organs and is not a measurement of the amount of radiation but is an assessment of the link between the radiation dose received and the potential detrimental effect [34] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation dose in paediatric cardiac catheterisation: A systematic literature review

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation dose in paediatric cardiac catheterisation: A systematic literature review

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The contrast-detail analysis is a parameter that contains the noise, contrast, and resolution of an image as a whole. Hence, it provides a simple measurement for overall performance of the system [5] . The observable minimum distinguishable contrast detection is carried out with a low contrast test phantom that includes test objects in different sizes and contrasts.…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Processed Mammography Images as a Quality Control Tool

Bektemür¹

2018

Haydarpasa Numune Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to international quality control testing standards, image quality determination in mammography systems is based on measuring contrast-detail measurements with contrast-detail for mammography (CDMAM) phantom. It is therefore important to evaluate the CDMAM phantom images correctly. The purpose of this study is to compare the inverse image quality figure index (IQF inv) obtained by automatically evaluating digital CDMAM phantom images with Artinis software (version 2.2, CDCOM) for raw and processed images. Methods: Digital phantom images were acquired in three different full-field digital mammography systems by using automatic exposure conditions (AEC). Five different phantom images were obtained from each mammography system as raw and processed as well as evaluated by the software. In addition, the IQF inv values of the systems were compared for mammography systems and the difference in between values was observed. Results: The differences between the IQF inv values of raw and processed images were found to be 1.34%, 5.62%, and 6.7% for System A, B, and C, respectively. Discussion and Conclusion: It was observed that the differences between the IQF inv values of raw and processed images were almost negligible and the IQF inv values obtained from the raw images were slightly higher than the values obtained from the processed images.

show abstract

Phantom-based comparison of conventional versus phase-contrast mammography for LCD soft-copy diagnosis

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Presentation of Digital Radiographic Systems and the Quality Control Procedures that Currently Followed by Various Organizations Worldwide~!2009-12-09~!2010-02-17~!2010-06-24~!

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Radiation dose in paediatric cardiac catheterisation: A systematic literature review

Radiation dose in paediatric cardiac catheterisation: A systematic literature review

Use of Processed Mammography Images as a Quality Control Tool

Phantom-based comparison of conventional versus phase-contrast mammography for LCD soft-copy diagnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About