1. Subhawong, T.K., et al., Soft-tissue masses and masslike conditions: what does CT add to diagnosis and management? AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 2010. 194(6): p. 1559-1567.
2. Herth, F.J.F., et al., The Modern Art of Reading Computed Tomography Images of the Lungs: Quantitative CT. Respiration, 2018. 95(1): p. 8-17.
3. Zhang, R., et al., Quantitative accuracy of CT numbers: Theoretical analyses and experimental studies. Med Phys, 2018. 45(10): p. 4519-4528.
4. Meyer, M., et al., Virtual Unenhanced Images at Dual-Energy CT: Influence on Renal Lesion Characterization. Radiology, 2019. 291(2): p. 381-390.
5. Lev, M.H. and R.G. Gonzalez, 17 - CT Angiography and CT Perfusion Imaging, in Brain Mapping: The Methods (Second Edition), A.W. Toga and J.C. Mazziotta, Editors. 2002, Academic Press: San Diego. p. 427-484.
6. Samei, E. and N. Pelc, Computed Tomography Approaches, Applications, and Operations: Approaches, Applications, and Operations. 2020.
7. Levi, C., et al., The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1982. 139(3): p. 443-7.
8. Hunter, T.B., G.D. Pond, and O. Medina, Dependence of substance CT number on scanning technique and position within scanner. Comput Radiol, 1983. 7(3): p. 199-203.
9. Zerhouni, E.A., et al., Factors influencing quantitative CT measurements of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 1982. 6(6): p. 1075-87.
10. Zheng, X., et al., Body size and tube voltage dependent corrections for Hounsfield Unit in medical X-ray computed tomography: theory and experiments. Scientific Reports, 2020. 10(1): p. 15696. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72707-y
11. He, T., et al., Computed Tomography Number Measurement Consistency Under Different Beam Hardening Conditions: Comparison Between Dual-Energy Spectral Computed Tomography and Conventional Computed Tomography Imaging in Phantom Experiment. Journal of computer assisted tomography, 2015. 39(6): p. 981-985. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26196347 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654266/
12. Boland, G.W., et al., Characterization of adrenal masses using unenhanced CT: an analysis of the CT literature. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1998. 171(1): p. 201-204. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648789
13. Park, J.J., B.K. Park, and C.K. Kim, Adrenal imaging for adenoma characterization: imaging features, diagnostic accuracies and differential diagnoses. Br J Radiol, 2016. 89(1062): p. 20151018.
14. Mohammed, A.R., et al., Dynamic perfusion CT parameters and delayed contrast washout CT in characterization of adrenal tumors: A comparative study. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2017. 48(3): p. 707-716.
15. Hélénon, O., et al., How to characterise a solid renal mass: A new classification proposal for a simplified approach. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 2012. 93(4): p. 232-245.
16. Khan, F.M., Khan's the physics of radiation therapy. Fifth edition. ed, ed. J.P. Gibbons, et al. 2014, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Wolters Kluwer.
17. Hsieh, J., Computed tomography : principles, design, artifacts, and recent advances. Third edition. ed. 2015, Bellingham, Washington: SPIE.
18. Goodsitt, M.M., E.G. Christodoulou, and S.C. Larson, Accuracies of the synthesized monochromatic CT numbers and effective atomic numbers obtained with a rapid kVp switching dual energy CT scanner. Med Phys, 2011. 38(4): p. 2222-32.
19. Khan, F.M. and J.P. Gibbons, Khan's the physics of radiation therapy. 2014.
20. Kaasalainen, T., et al., Effect of patient centering on patient dose and image noise in chest CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014. 203(1): p. 123-30.
21. Radiation dose from multidetector CT. 2nd ed. ed. Medical radiology : diagnostic imaging, ed. D. Tack, M.K. Kalra, and P.A. Gevenois. 2012, Heidelberg ;: Springer.
22. Gudjonsdottir, J., et al., Efficient use of automatic exposure control systems in computed tomography requires correct patient positioning. Acta Radiol, 2009. 50(9): p. 1035-41.
23. Habibzadeh, M.A., et al., Impact of miscentering on patient dose and image noise in x-ray CT imaging: phantom and clinical studies. Phys Med, 2012. 28(3): p. 191-9.
24. Matsubara, K., et al., Misoperation of CT automatic tube current modulation systems with inappropriate patient centering: phantom studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2009. 192(4): p. 862-5.
25. Funama, Y., et al., Image noise and radiation dose using an automatic tube current modulation technique at 64-detector computed tomography: effect of off-center patient position, bowtie filter type, and scan projection radiograph. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2009. 33(6): p. 973-7.
26. Kalra, M.K., et al., In-plane shielding for CT: effect of off-centering, automatic exposure control and shield-to-surface distance. Korean journal of radiology, 2009. 10(2): p. 156-163.
27. Mansour, Z., et al., Quality control of CT image using American College of Radiology (ACR) phantom. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2016. 47(4): p. 1665-1671. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378603X16301619
28. Gulliksrud, K., C. Stokke, and A.C. Trægde Martinsen, How to measure CT image quality: Variations in CT-numbers, uniformity and low contrast resolution for a CT quality assurance phantom. Physica Medica, 2014. 30(4): p. 521-526.
29. International standard IEC, IEC 61223-3-5 Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments, in part 3– 5: acceptance tests – imaging performance of computed tomography X-ray equipment. 2013.
30. International standard IEC, IEC 61223-2-6. Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments, in part 2–6: acceptance tests – imaging performance of computed tomography X-ray equipment. 2006.
31. Sukupova, L., D. Vedlich, and F. Jiru, Consequences of the Patient's Mis-centering on the Radiation Dose and Image Quality in CT Imaging – Phantom and Clinical Study. Universal Journal of Medical Science, 2016. 4: p. 102-107.
32. Liu, F., et al., Dynamic bowtie filter for cone-beam/multi-slice CT. PloS one, 2014. 9(7): p. e103054-e103054.
33. Goodsitt, M.M., et al., Accuracy of the CT numbers of simulated lung nodules imaged with multi-detector CT scanners. Medical physics, 2006. 33(8): p. 3006-3017.
34. Szczykutowicz, T.P., A. DuPlissis, and P.J. Pickhardt, Variation in CT Number and Image Noise Uniformity According to Patient Positioning in MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2017. 208(5): p. 1064-1072.