Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
8
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1990-10-9
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
Five postprocessing methods for dual-energy quantitative computed tomography of the vertebral body were evaluated theoretically. The methods were compared by transforming the original sets of equations to a standard set. Only two of these methods produced optimal results, namely the basic approach of Goodsitt et al and the method of Nickoloff et al. The calibration approach of Goodsitt et al will produce optimal results only if calibration materials are available that mimic the anatomic constituents of the vertebral body better than those available currently. Theoretically, the methods of Cann et al and of Laval-Jeantet et al will not produce optimal results.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Aug
|
| pubmed:issn |
0020-9996
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
25
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
876-81
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2009-11-11
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1990
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Evaluation of postprocessing dual-energy methods in quantitative computed tomography. Part 1. Theoretical considerations.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Erasmus University Rotterdam/Academic Hospital Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|