Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 59

1.

In situ study of the impact of inter- and intra-reader variability on region of interest (ROI) analysis in preclinical molecular imaging.

Habte F, Budhiraja S, Keren S, Doyle TC, Levin CS, Paik DS.

Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;3(2):175-81. Epub 2013 Mar 8.

2.

Increasing the "region of interest" and "time of interest", both reduce the variability of blood flow measurements using laser speckle contrast imaging.

Rousseau P, Mahé G, Haj-Yassin F, Durand S, Humeau A, Leftheriotis G, Abraham P.

Microvasc Res. 2011 Jul;82(1):88-91. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2011.03.009. Epub 2011 Mar 23.

PMID:
21439303
3.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging measurements in renal cell carcinoma: effect of region of interest size and positioning on interobserver and intraobserver variability.

Braunagel M, Radler E, Ingrisch M, Staehler M, Schmid-Tannwald C, Rist C, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Notohamiprodjo M.

Invest Radiol. 2015 Jan;50(1):57-66. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000096.

PMID:
25260094
4.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in head-and-neck cancer: the impact of region of interest selection on the intra- and interpatient variability of pharmacokinetic parameters.

Craciunescu OI, Yoo DS, Cleland E, Muradyan N, Carroll MD, MacFall JR, Barboriak DP, Brizel DM.

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Mar 1;82(3):e345-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.05.059. Epub 2011 Oct 8.

PMID:
21985945
5.

Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis.

Heye T, Merkle EM, Reiner CS, Davenport MS, Horvath JJ, Feuerlein S, Breault SR, Gall P, Bashir MR, Dale BM, Kiraly AP, Boll DT.

Radiology. 2013 Mar;266(3):812-21. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120255. Epub 2012 Dec 6.

PMID:
23220891
6.

Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability.

Lambregts DM, Beets GL, Maas M, Curvo-Semedo L, Kessels AG, Thywissen T, Beets-Tan RG.

Eur Radiol. 2011 Dec;21(12):2567-74. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2220-5. Epub 2011 Aug 7.

7.

Reproducibility of the aortic input function (AIF) derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the kidneys in a volunteer study.

Mendichovszky IA, Cutajar M, Gordon I.

Eur J Radiol. 2009 Sep;71(3):576-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.09.025. Epub 2008 Nov 11.

PMID:
19004588
8.

Quantification of track-weighted imaging (TWI): characterisation of within-subject reproducibility and between-subject variability.

Willats L, Raffelt D, Smith RE, Tournier JD, Connelly A, Calamante F.

Neuroimage. 2014 Feb 15;87:18-31. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.016. Epub 2013 Nov 16.

PMID:
24246491
9.

Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in endometrial carcinoma: effect of region of interest methods on ADC values.

Inoue C, Fujii S, Kaneda S, Fukunaga T, Kaminou T, Kigawa J, Harada T, Ogawa T.

J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Jul;40(1):157-61. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24372. Epub 2013 Oct 31.

PMID:
24677497
10.

Impact of Reconstruction Algorithms on CT Radiomic Features of Pulmonary Tumors: Analysis of Intra- and Inter-Reader Variability and Inter-Reconstruction Algorithm Variability.

Kim H, Park CM, Lee M, Park SJ, Song YS, Lee JH, Hwang EJ, Goo JM.

PLoS One. 2016 Oct 14;11(10):e0164924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164924. eCollection 2016.

11.

The reduction of inter- and intra-observer variability for defining regions of interest in nuclear medicine.

Jackson PC, Jones M, Brimble CE, Hart J.

Eur J Nucl Med. 1985;11(5):186-9.

PMID:
4065155
13.

Variability of consecutive in vivo MR flow measurements in the main portal vein.

Hara AK, Burkart DJ, Johnson CD, Felmlee JP, Ehman RL, Ilstrup DM, Harmsen WS.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Jun;166(6):1311-5.

PMID:
8633438
14.

Observer variability when evaluating patient movement from electronic portal images of pelvic radiotherapy fields.

Lewis DG, Ryan KR, Smith CW.

Radiother Oncol. 2005 Mar;74(3):275-81. Epub 2004 Dec 23.

PMID:
15763308
15.

Statistical evaluation of confocal microscopy images.

Zucker RM, Price OT.

Cytometry. 2001 Aug 1;44(4):295-308.

PMID:
11500846
16.

Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging.

Giannotti E, Waugh S, Priba L, Davis Z, Crowe E, Vinnicombe S.

Eur J Radiol. 2015 Sep;84(9):1729-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.05.032. Epub 2015 Jun 1.

PMID:
26078100
17.

[Standardization and acceleration of quantitative analysis of dynamic MR mammographies via parametric images and automatized ROI definition].

Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Lutterbey G, Sommer T, Keller E, Schild HH.

Rofo. 1996 Jun;164(6):475-82. German.

PMID:
8688504
18.

Inter- and intra-rater reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using TWIST perfusion data in a uterine fibroid model.

Davenport MS, Heye T, Dale BM, Horvath JJ, Breault SR, Feuerlein S, Bashir MR, Boll DT, Merkle EM.

J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Aug;38(2):329-35. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23974. Epub 2012 Dec 12.

19.

Standardization of T1 measurements with MOLLI in differentiation between health and disease--the ConSept study.

Rogers T, Dabir D, Mahmoud I, Voigt T, Schaeffter T, Nagel E, Puntmann VO.

J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 Sep 11;15:78. doi: 10.1186/1532-429X-15-78.

20.

Reproducibility and reliability of volumetric measurements of olfactory eloquent structures.

Yousem DM, Geckle RJ, Doty RL, Bilker WB.

Acad Radiol. 1997 Apr;4(4):264-9.

PMID:
9110023

Supplemental Content

Support Center