All gray-scale US and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) images were obtained by using the same scanner (S2000 US machine, Siemens Medical Solutions, Mountain View, CA, USA) and same linear array transducer (9L4, Siemens Medical Solutions, Mountain View, CA, USA) with a center frequency of 7.5 MHz (range, 5.0 14.0 MHz).
However, repeated MR scanning of the same subject, even if using the same scanner and acquisition parameters, does not result in identical images due to small changes in image orientation, changes in prescan parameters, and magnetic field instability.
The images were all acquired using the same scanner (Philips Brilliance 64, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) with 2 mm slice thickness, 1 mm inter-slice distance and reconstructions in the coronal plane.
A low-dose CT scan for attenuation correction was performed using the same scanner directly after PET; in addition where the administration of a contrast agent (Omnipaque 350, GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, USA) was not contraindicated (serum creatinine level >1.5 mg/dl or estimated glomerular filtration rate <60ml/min), a diagnostic carotid angiogram (CTA) was performed using bolus tracking.
For the clinical data, sinograms and attenuation CTs were collected for ten oncology patients with a variety of malignancies acquired and reconstructed using the same scanner and four reconstruction protocols used in the phantom study (data courtesy of Lemmen-Holton PETCT, Grand Rapids, MI).
Since model accuracy is dependent on the methods used in the calculation of BMD and density-mechanical property relationships, it is important to use relationships developed for the same anatomical location and using the same scanner settings, as these may impact model accuracy.
But those ballots will have to be counted at a central location using the same scanners that normally count the absentee votes, because the counties were not able to acquire enough machines to perform tallies at individual polling places.
For therapeutic assessment where repeated imaging is performed, it may be appropriate to use the same scanner and acquisition parameters to ensure consistency.
The erasure analysis used the same scanners that score tests to count the erasures in which answers were changed from wrong to right.
This difference is most probably a consequence of methodological differences: these later studies (Moeller et al., 2008; Tsao et al., 2008) relied on MION-based measurements of activity-related changes in blood volume, well-known to be more sensitive by a factor of 3 than the BOLD method deployed by us, using the same 3T scanner (Leite et al., 2002).
Using the same clinical scanner for both methods, static images were taken using our standard protocol, sequential-biplane radiographs at multiple flexion angles, as well as with dynamic video fluoroscopy during a step up activity.
