ライフサイエンスコーパス: image quality

1 diation exposure while preserving diagnostic image quality.

2 rfusion signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and poor image quality.

3 in image reconstruction artifacts degrading image quality.

4 r indeterminate pulmonary nodule, and graded image quality.

5 one reader; two readers assessed subjective image quality.

6 al subtraction angiography but offers better image quality.

7 rm in order to reduce side lobes and improve image quality.

8 tively judged to have very good or excellent image quality.

9 reduce the image contrast, thus degrade the image quality.

10 ion artifacts were the main cause of average image quality.

11 ise, contrast-to-noise ratio, and subjective image quality.

12 tifacts, severe stenosis, and degradation of image quality.

13 oroborate prosthetic on pharmacokinetics and image quality.

14 with less activity, without a compromise in image quality.

15 te of administration of sedatives as well as image quality.

16 ation that can be used to improve MR and PET image quality.

17 markedly improves SNR, resulting in improved image quality.

18 re sufficient number of photons for superior image quality.

19 on of radiation exposure and optimization of image quality.

20 of applied radiation doses while maintaining image quality.

21 tic valve could improve PET quantitation and image quality.

22 nsated MR and PET reconstructions to improve image quality.

23 coxon signed-rank tests were used to compare image quality.

24 rformed at the point of care with reasonable image quality.

25 distort propagating wave fronts and degrade image quality.

26 intaining an appropriate level of diagnostic image quality.

27 and high radiation dose to achieve superior image quality.

28 an increase in image noise and a decline in image quality.

29 accuracy, image uniformity, image noise, and image quality.

30 nificantly associated with an overall poorer image quality.

31 o decrease radiation exposure but may reduce image quality.

32 -70% reduction from baseline with no loss in image quality.

33 ted by three thoracic radiologists to assess image quality.

34 an improve the localization accuracy and the image quality.

35 evaluated by using a Likert scale (5 = high image quality, 1 = nondiagnostic).

36 than in the fixed cohort (excellent or good image quality, 100% vs 67%; P < .001).

37 Results All CT studies were of diagnostic image quality (3.4 +/- 0.3), with no difference in the d

38 ents, these specialists separately evaluated image quality (4-point scale) and determined the scan pr

39 ween morphologic datasets and differences in image quality (4-point scale), SUVmean, SUVmax, and char

40 ng patients without PDR or with insufficient image quality, 47 eyes of 35 patients were included.

41 Overall image quality (5-point scale) was assessed, and the dete

42 light diffuser over the flash to improve the image quality, a mini dark box and a disposable analytic

43 effect of iso-osmolar contrast media and the image quality achieved.

44 Patient motion degrades image quality, affecting the quantitative assessment of

45 ing of multiple en face OCTA images improves image quality and also significantly impacts quantitativ

46 Image quality and artefacts were rated.

47 nts, induces stress, and leads to suboptimal image quality and avoidance of imaging, thus increasing

48 No correlation between image quality and cardiac parameters were reported ( r=-

49 Head motion degrades image quality and causes erroneous parameter estimates i

50 performs iterative reconstructions in visual image quality and contrast (+ 67% improvement).

51 the results indicated significantly enhanced image quality and contrast-to-noise performance for Q.Cl

52 y acquired projections considerably recovers image quality and could allow a reduced SPECT acquisitio

53 yes at year 2 in CATT were selected based on image quality and CP/FA-determined predominant presence

54 infrared (DFIR) spectroscopic microscopes in image quality and data throughput are critical to their

55 (DFIR) spectroscopic microscopes in spectral image quality and data throughput are promising for use

56 Interrelations between overall image quality and degree of visualization of CLS structu

57 ased on indirect ophthalmoscopy) in terms of image quality and diagnostic accuracy for DR screening.

58 The improvement in image quality and diagnostic accuracy of the technique w

59 er, not all devices are suitable in terms of image quality and diagnostic accuracy.

60 source, leading to significant reductions in image quality and diagnostic capabilities.

61 dose levels, thereby maintaining subjective image quality and diagnostic confidence for a variety of

62 Conclusion The DLR algorithm improved image quality and dose reduction without sacrificing noi

63 posed scan yielded diagnostically acceptable image quality and enabled reliable quantification of MBF

64 r volume demonstrates high repeatability and image quality and enables better differentiation of a Gl

65 ed in AD and HC subjects demonstrated a high image quality and excellent signal-to-noise ratio of (18

66 to gated (18)F-NaF PET images could enhance image quality and improve uptake estimates.

67 The model has good tolerance to image quality and is tested with different manufacturers

68 ation exposure level, readers' perception of image quality and lesion conspicuity was consistently ra

69 SAFIRE-3 yielded similar reader rankings of image quality and lesion conspicuity when compared with

70 is not feasible without a negative impact on image quality and lesion detectability.

71 Readers assessed overall image quality and lesions between SD FBP and seven diffe

72 (SE) echo-planar DWI methods often have poor image quality and low spatial resolution.

73 to superior performance, resulting in higher image quality and lower SUV bias and variance than for F

74 Reader agreement for image quality and overall degree of visualization was as

75 Almost all assessed image quality and perceived diagnostic capability parame

76 ads to significant improvements in perceived image quality and perceived diagnostic capability when e

77 for effective data acquisition with improved image quality and protein density.

78 ecific individualized trigger delay improves image quality and provides uniform contrast attenuation

79 The purpose of this study was to assess image quality and quantitative brain PET across a multic

80 the PET camera performance and degrade both image quality and quantitative capabilities.

81 How the DLR affects image quality and radiation dose reduction has yet to be

82 at limits the spatial resolution, diagnostic image quality and results in typically long acquisition

83 this new PET/CT system in terms of perceived image quality and semiquantitative analysis in compariso

84 Purpose To assess image quality and speed improvements for single-shot fas

85 ms available on the market and compare their image quality and the automatic DR detection accuracy us

86 diac motion of the heart can strongly impair image quality and therefore diagnostic accuracy of cardi

87 assessed for intraluminal opacification and image quality and were compared by using the Student t t

88 radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic image quality and whether dose reduction is related to b

89 secondary factors that may have an impact on image quality and, thus, final interpretation.

90 s specimen movement during imaging, improves image quality, and allows high-resolution structure dete

91 PET images were assessed for overall image quality, and areas of abnormal uptake were contras

92 enhancement patterns, lesion detectability, image quality, and artifacts by two interventional radio

93 Purpose To evaluate the repeatability, image quality, and diagnostic utility of intracellular v

94 higher on tumor lesion demarcation, overall image quality, and image noise than images acquired on t

95 of 1-5) on tumor lesion demarcation, overall image quality, and image noise.

96 veral metrics: SUV quantitation, qualitative image quality, and lesion detectability.

97 NCa achieved superior diagnostic confidence, image quality, and noise scores compared with standard C

98 Methods: Resolution, sensitivity, image quality, and noise-equivalent count rate (NECR) we

99 ariations in the extent of ON tissue damage, image quality, and species of mammal.

100 mCT in terms of lesion demarcation, overall image quality, and visually assessed signal-to-noise rat

101 On the five-point Likert scale for image quality, AR-SMS imaging scored 1.31 points higher

102 s and were scored and ranked on the basis of image quality, as assessed by visual evaluation, with th

103 ter injection while maintaining satisfactory image quality, as provided by the primate mini-EXPLORER

104 A deep convolutional neural network for image quality assessment (IQ-DCNN) was designed, trained

105 iation]; 66.5% men) were used to generate an image quality assessment algorithm.

106 ing texture feature estimates and task based image quality assessment can be extended to several othe

107 The image quality assessment during compressed sensing recon

108 d IQ-DCNN was trained to mimic expert visual image quality assessment of 3D whole-heart MR images.

109 Therefore, further subjective image quality assessment was conducted using the 60-s/bp

110 Therefore, it has limitations for various image quality assessments of scanning areas.

111 tivity data and evaluation of the diagnostic image quality at baseline; comparison of baseline admini

112 at both time points by visual analysis, the image quality at both time points, and a semiquantitativ

113 Importantly, it is capable of providing high image quality at low x-ray doses, compatible with or eve

114 a subset of 111 CT examinations to validate image quality at the lower bound.

115 0 randomly selected participants to (a) rate image quality, (b) categorize findings, and (c) determin

116 No significant differences in image quality between cold kits and synthesis modules we

117 lts The phantom experiment showed comparable image quality between DSSE and conventional single-sourc

118 imaging of the lamina, but the difference in image quality between enhanced depth imaging (EDI) with

119 ATATE, we demonstrated comparable diagnostic image quality between the PennPET scan and the clinical

120 a quantitative way not only to optimize the image quality between uniformity and sharpness but also

121 d pediatric study participants, with similar image quality but higher preference by subjects and thei

122 Iterative reconstruction improved subjective image quality but not performance at low dose levels.

123 tem has the largest field of view and better image quality compared with iExaminer, D-Eye, and Peek R

124 lts: MUSE DWI yielded significantly improved image quality compared with single-shot DWI in phantoms

125 dose-reduced chest computed tomography (CT) image quality compared with that attained with conventio

126 l study, the Biograph Vision showed improved image quality compared with the Biograph mCT in terms of

127 model for view selection ensuring stringent image quality control.

128 uracy of attenuation and scatter correction, image quality, coregistration accuracy, and time-of-flig

129 Image quality, coronary segment interpretability, effect

130 line is performing at its optimum, or if the image quality could be improved.

131 ng, for which additionally an improvement of image quality could be observed.

132 Results: Image quality declined with decreasing dose (mean score

133 Diagnostic image quality decreased with decreasing dose (P < .001)

134 Sixty-two eyes with sufficient image quality demonstrated new-onset GA on color photogr

135 Good image quality depends highly on patient cooperation and

136 Image quality determined by age was fair to good in 68 (

137 onger procedural time and poor or suboptimal image quality determining an increased risk.

138 n a smartphone; however, key aspects such as image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and comparability of

139 Image quality did not differ significantly between 30-12

140 tology can yield consistent and reproducible image quality, enabling quantitative assessment of a tis

141 This unique approach allows comprehensive image quality evaluation with wide versatility.

142 Percentage agreement on image quality, findings categorization, and ability to c

143 us multislice protocol was rated highest for image quality, followed by the readout-segmented echo-pl

144 mosaic patterns appeared denser with better image quality for all participants compared with foveal

145 ed with MINOCA, of whom 145 had adequate OCT image quality for analysis; 116 of these underwent CMR.

146 Image quality for DR systems was significantly higher th

147 s approach greatly improves the fluorescence image quality for examining live cell behaviors and dyna

148 struction methods used in NT, providing high image quality for limited datasets.

149 In the present study, image quality for several screen-film (SF), computed rad

150 d the magnetic resonance signal strength and image quality for two practical switching modes in an in

151 phy in the detection of PE and yields better image quality for visualization of small vessels and lun

152 Furthermore, after image quality had been dichotomized as excellent or not

153 sound (FU) power; and imaging depth) and the image qualities (i.e., signal-to-noise ratio, spatial re

154 Purpose To identify potential PET image quality improvement by using a recently developed

155 stigate a DLR algorithm's dose reduction and image quality improvement for pediatric CT.

156 fied 6454 (61%) examinations with sufficient image quality in all standard views.

157 otion correction led to an improvement in MR image quality in all subjects, with an increase in sharp

158 re tested: (a) that the algorithm can assess image quality in concordance with human expert assessmen

159 s or support films which can severely reduce image quality in cryo-EM and are not compatible with man

160 gradients as a small perturbation to improve image quality in highly undersampled MRI.

161 ve specimens and thus substantially improves image quality in live-imaged primary cell cultures, plan

162 al features, is a primary factor for reduced image quality in optical microscopy.

163 o prevent respiration effects from degrading image quality in PET.

164 The image quality in the mid abdomen seems to be more affect

165 on-produced (99m)Tc-NaTcO4 did not influence image quality in the standard-energy window.

166 It also improved image quality in these locations (P = 0.02, 0.01, and 0.

167 lso a significant qualitative improvement in image quality in these locations.

168 e background speckle noise thus degrades the image quality in traditional microscopy and more signifi

169 nnel superficial phased-array coils improved imaging quality in PFI.

170 ologic retinas demonstrated at least average image quality, in which retinal vasculature and landmark

171 With the Jaszczak phantom, image quality increased overall when a reconstruction al

172 SAFIRE system).The measurements involved: - image quality indicators for the CATPHAN 600 phantom; -

173 Purpose To assess image quality, interpretability, diagnostic accuracy, an

174 e is known about their impact on the retinal image quality (IQ) of these eyes.

175 mFISH protocol on chip and demonstrated that image quality is preserved.

176 optical instruments, in mesoscopic samples, image quality is still largely limited by the optical pr

177 echocardiographic examinations of sufficient image quality, it is feasible for deep neural networks t

178 B Readers had minimal agreement on technical image quality (kappa = 0.0796; 95% confidence interval [

179 tion in PET activity, with no degradation in image quality, leading to a corresponding reduction in a

180 es evaluation of coronary arteries with high image quality, low radiation exposure, and high diagnost

181 resholds to be simultaneously tuned for each image quality metric used, and also struggle to distingu

182 ar mixed-effects models were used to analyze image quality metrics and diagnostic performance for les

183 Objective image quality metrics were compared in the phantom exper

184 terval: 1.01 to 1.59) and poor or suboptimal image quality (odds ratio: 4.93; 95% confidence interval

185 The aim of our study was to evaluate the image quality of (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT (PSMA-PET) in a p

186 tive motion correction method to improve the image quality of 15 tumour data sets from 11 patients.

187 tion information was used to improve the PET image quality of a human in vivo scan.

188 ence ranges were developed after analysis of image quality of a subset of 111 CT examinations to vali

189 There was no significant difference between image quality of ADC and FIC maps (score, 3.1 vs 3.3, re

190 ed image uniformity, spatial resolution, and image quality of brain PET.

191 The aim of this study is to optimise the image quality of computed tomography (CT) scanning for t

192 The image quality of FIC and ADC maps was independently eval

193 o combat atmospheric aberrations, to improve image quality of fluorescence microscopy for biological

194 ferent light sources and how they affect the image quality of holographic display are investigated.

195 The quantitative accuracy and image quality of multi-isotope SPECT is affected by vari

196 Purpose To compare the resolution and image quality of standard SE echo-planar imaging DWI wit

197 The overall image quality of the PSF reconstructions was rated bette

198 In tomographic reconstruction, the image quality of the reconstructed images can be signifi

199 Image quality of the subclavian and aortoiliofemoral art

200 ed observer qualitatively assessed the SPECT image quality of the test set.

201 The influence on image quality of Thiel versus formalin embalming was exa

202 ing cryo-electron microscopy technology, the image quality of three-dimensional reconstruction of cry

203 rodent lower digestive track to improve the imaging quality of deep-lying vessels inside the abdomin

204 ometries revealed a strong dependency of the image quality on the source location pattern.

205 fibrillated in the MRI without degrading the image quality or increasing the time needed for defibril

206 ght sheet technique that avoids compromising image quality or photon efficiency.

207 mal PET imaging without considerable loss of image quality or quantitative precision.

208 perior to SPECT for defect size (p < 0.001), image quality (p < 0.001), diagnostic certainty (p < 0.0

209 on indirect ophthalmoscopy yielded the best image quality (P < 0.01), the largest field-of-view, and

210 arent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and image quality parameters (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] fo

211 duct (DLP), and the effective dose (ED), and image quality parameters include image noise, uniformity

212 on between CT scanners and related doses and image quality parameters, the ImPACT Q-factor was used.

213 1007, and (68)Ga-PSMA-11 with respect to key image-quality parameters for the time frame 60-120 min.

214 he overall image contrast seen with the NEMA image quality phantom ranged from 77.2% to 89.8%.

215 ational Electrical Manufacturers Association image-quality phantom and scanned various times.

216 The uniformity in the image-quality phantom was 3.3%, and the spillover ratio

217 ational Electrical Manufacturers Association image-quality phantom was imaged with 13 PET/CT systems

218 raged contrast recovery coefficients for the image-quality phantom were 53.7, 64.0, 73.1, 82.7, 86.8,

219 nction with (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging of mini image-quality phantoms designed to fit the new imaging s

220 with ST underwent OCT imaging; 14 (6.1%) had image quality precluding further analysis.

221 Purpose To compare the image quality produced by kinetic imaging in x-ray angio

222 pressed sensing reconstruction process where image quality progressively improves.

223 Image quality qualified as good or excellent in 94% of c

224 Image quality ratings were equal for both techniques.

225 ell)) provides a single robust assessment of image quality regardless of the underlying causes of qua

226 Image quality remained high at this time.

227 of CLS visualization correlated with overall image quality (rho = 0.71; P < .001).

228 The image quality score was 4 for 99% (283 of 286) of the se

229 uation increase ratio (SAIR), and subjective image quality score were measured and compared between t

230 th regards to in-stent noise, SNR, SAIR, and image quality score.

231 Lesions in the images were quantified and image quality scored by a radiologist who was masked to

232 ectively), with significantly better NPS and image quality scores for lung, soft tissue, and bone and

233 images, the denoised images received higher image quality scores from the readers (P < .0001).

234 Image quality scores were lower with NIR-C versus AR (P

235 Image quality (sharpness/focus, reflex artifacts, contra

236 the external morphology of the limb with an image quality similar to scanning electron microscopy, w

237 fraction patterns acquired in one scan, with image quality similar with those obtained by conventiona

238 h as throughput, sensitivity, dynamic range, image quality, sort purity, and sort yield; the developm

239 Due to its superior image quality, SPRITE is highly sensitive to defects and

240 fter adjusting for speckle-tracking analyst, image quality, study site, age, sex, smoking status, alc

241 absolute quantitative SPECT images with high image quality (subcentimeter resolution at an acceptable

242 In the image quality test, contrast recovery for VPHD, VPHD-S,

243 Several SF systems failed to pass the image quality tests because of artifacts.

244 g and spatial resolution, aiming at a better image quality than conventional PET (cPET) systems.

245 RI sequences in an HFO platform offer a high image quality that is comparable to the quality of image

246 wing the previously simulated improvement to image quality, this work introduces the insight that Car

247 both accelerated imaging speed and improved image quality through optimized DNA hybridization kineti

248 er extremities CTA protocol allowing similar image quality to be achieved in both groups, with optimi

249 ion and reporting, with the goals to improve imaging quality, to decrease image interpretation errors

250 To assess image quality, two independent radiologists subjectively

251 ther BPL leads to an improvement in clinical image quality using (90)Y.

252 MOMA phantom for quantitative evaluation of image quality using customized module assembly compatibl

253 nal Health Service guidelines as well as for image quality using predefined criteria.

254 Further we show improvements in image quality using refractive lenses that show signific

255 demonstrate the significant improvements in image quality using the graphene grids and expand the sc

256 sence and characteristics of pulmonary AVMs, image quality, vessel visibility, and artifact grade.

257 Qualitative image quality was assessed on the basis of Likert scorin

258 PET image quality was assessed using a NEMA IQ phantom.

259 Image quality was assessed via the coefficient of variat

260 ve fat fraction and R2* relaxation rate, and image quality was assessed with a four-point scale by tw

261 e 3 modality performances were evaluated and image quality was assessed with a Likert-scale questionn

262 Material/An evaluation of image quality was carried out for 22 ultrasound scanners

263 Image quality was comparable for all sequences (all p>0.

264 Consequently, image quality was considerably improved using (18)F-4FMF

265 Objective image quality was evaluated by one reader; two readers a

266 Subjective image quality was evaluated with a masked reading of eac

267 Interrater agreement of image quality was excellent (kappa = 0.96).

268 Image quality was extended by accounting for different a

269 The image quality was improved when shielding was introduced

270 of ungradable images was acceptably low and image quality was marginally better with the Remidio FOP

271 Results: Excellent image quality was obtained, capturing the initial distri

272 Image quality was rated as good to excellent (scores: 2.

273 Image quality was rated on a four-point Likert scale.

274 Subjective image quality was stable over a range between 1.25 and 2

275 Image quality was subjectively judged on a 3-point Liker

276 ctivity of only 20-40 kBq in the animal, the image quality was sufficient to readily identify activit

277 Images quality was high (8/10 in 5 visits and 7/10 in on

278 Excellent imaging quality was achieved with both (18)F-DCFPyL and

279 Based on the currently attainable image quality, we estimate a threshold for detection tha

280 t-rate performance, count rate accuracy, and image quality were assessed.

281 rdiographic quantification and color Doppler image quality were associated with improved concordance

282 catter fraction, counting rate accuracy, and image quality were characterized with the National Elect

283 Uniformity and image quality were evaluated using the SUV in a small vo

284 Participants with artifact or poor image quality were excluded, leaving 18 eyes for the ana

285 ise ratio (21 vs 19; P = .04) and subjective image quality were higher in the individualized cohort t

286 Several cases of suboptimal image quality were identified along with differences in

287 ) of greater than 0 and good or excellent CT image quality were included for manual CAC segmentation

288 3%] of white race/ethnicity) with sufficient image quality were included in this analysis.

289 uantitative accuracy and only little loss of image quality when the activity ratio is adapted to isot

290 ealed significant improvements in diagnostic image quality when using gating, without significant dif

291 canned and reconstructed at a resolution and image quality, which allows for the segmentation of indi

292 ories had more complete reporting and better image quality, while echocardiographic quantification an

293 LA LGE method produced clinically acceptable image quality with 1.5 mm x 1.5 mm x 2-mm nominal spatia

294 a obtained in AD and HC demonstrate the high image quality with excellent signal-to-noise of (18)F-PI

295 the volume imaged continuously degraded the image quality with increasing activity.

296 ociated with the lasing process degrades the image quality with speckle formation.

297 in, spine, abdomen, and heart generated good image quality with this system.

298 Qualitative analysis was performed for image quality (with a five-point scale), extent of bowel

299 Q.Clear reconstruction improves the PET image quality, with higher recovery coefficients and low

300 nventional CT acquisition, while maintaining image quality without metal artifacts.