The Experts below are selected from a list of 1821882 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Claudia J Kasales - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P <.001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P <.001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to the air attenuation, and the worst had the transition zone attenuation halfway between the air and wall attenuation. CONCLUSION: Virtual reality is best with volume rendering, with the transition zone (mucosa) between the wall and air reconstruCTed as a separate struCTure.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P < .001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P < .001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to...
Kenneth D Hopper - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P <.001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P <.001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to the air attenuation, and the worst had the transition zone attenuation halfway between the air and wall attenuation. CONCLUSION: Virtual reality is best with volume rendering, with the transition zone (mucosa) between the wall and air reconstruCTed as a separate struCTure.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P < .001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P < .001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to...
Tunc A Iyriboz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P <.001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P <.001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to the air attenuation, and the worst had the transition zone attenuation halfway between the air and wall attenuation. CONCLUSION: Virtual reality is best with volume rendering, with the transition zone (mucosa) between the wall and air reconstruCTed as a separate struCTure.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P < .001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P < .001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to...
David T Mauger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P <.001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P <.001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to the air attenuation, and the worst had the transition zone attenuation halfway between the air and wall attenuation. CONCLUSION: Virtual reality is best with volume rendering, with the transition zone (mucosa) between the wall and air reconstruCTed as a separate struCTure.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P < .001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P < .001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to...
Scott W Wise - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P <.001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P <.001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to the air attenuation, and the worst had the transition zone attenuation halfway between the air and wall attenuation. CONCLUSION: Virtual reality is best with volume rendering, with the transition zone (mucosa) between the wall and air reconstruCTed as a separate struCTure.
-
mucosal detail at CT virtual reality surface versus volume rendering
Radiology, 2000Co-Authors: Kenneth D Hopper, Tunc A Iyriboz, Scott W Wise, Joel D Neuman, David T Mauger, Claudia J KasalesAbstract:PURPOSE: To evaluate computed tomographic virtual reality with volumetric versus surface rendering. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual reality images were reconstruCTed for 27 normal or pathologic colonic, gastric, or bronchial struCTures in four ways: the transition zone (a) reconstruCTed separately from the wall by using volume rendering; (b) with attenuation equal to air; (c) with attenuation equal to wall (soft tissue); (d) with attenuation halfway between air and wall. The four reconstruCTed images were randomized. Four experienced imagers blinded to the reconstruCTion graded them from best to worst with predetermined criteria. RESULTS: All readers rated images with the transition zone as a separate struCTure as overwhelmingly superior (P < .001): Nineteen cases had complete concurrence among all readers. The best of the surface-rendering reconstruCTions had the transition zone attenuation equal to the wall attenuation (P < .001). The third best reconstruCTion had the transition zone attenuation equal to...