These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10202471)

  • 21. Clinical application of single dual-energy subtraction technique with digital storage-phosphor radiography.
    Kamimura R; Takashima T
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 Feb; 8(1 Suppl 1):21-4. PubMed ID: 7734535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. How many times can we use a phosphor plate? A preliminary study.
    Ergün S; Güneri P; Ilgüy D; Ilgüy M; Boyacioglu H
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Jan; 38(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 19114423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Value of subtraction technique in Gd-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the thoracic aorta.
    O'Connell MJ; Murray JG
    Clin Radiol; 2001 Jul; 56(7):545-9. PubMed ID: 11446751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after application of various image processing algorithms.
    Alpöz E; Soğur E; Baksi Akdeniz BG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):490-4. PubMed ID: 18033946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phosphor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details.
    Uffmann M; Schaefer-Prokop C; Neitzel U; Weber M; Herold CJ; Prokop M
    Radiology; 2004 May; 231(2):506-14. PubMed ID: 15128995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Quantitative subtraction with direct digital dental radiography.
    Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H; Sasaki T
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Sep; 26(5):286-94. PubMed ID: 9482001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of a dental subtraction radiography system.
    Ellwood RP; Davies RM; Worthington HV
    J Periodontal Res; 1997 Feb; 32(2):241-8. PubMed ID: 9089491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.
    Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
    Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Development of a novel digital subtraction technique for detecting subtle changes in jawbone density.
    Du Tré F; Jacobs R; Styven S; van Steenberghe D
    Clin Oral Investig; 2006 Sep; 10(3):235-48. PubMed ID: 16770624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of two objective methods to optimize kVp and personnel exposure using a digital indirect flat panel detector and simulated veterinary patients.
    Copple C; Robertson ID; Thrall DE; Samei E
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2013; 54(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 23293957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Correction of background noise in direct digital dental radiography.
    Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H; Sasaki T
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):256-62. PubMed ID: 9161179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effect of automatic tube current modulation on radiation dose and image quality for low tube voltage multidetector row CT angiography: phantom study.
    Schindera ST; Nelson RC; Yoshizumi T; Toncheva G; Nguyen G; DeLong DM; Szucs-Farkas Z
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Aug; 16(8):997-1002. PubMed ID: 19409820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Experience of Norwegian general dental practitioners with solid state and storage phosphor detectors.
    Wenzel A; Møystad A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jul; 30(4):203-8. PubMed ID: 11681481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of linear measurements made from storage phosphor and dental radiographs.
    Conover GL; Hildebolt CF; Yokoyama-Crothers N
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):268-73. PubMed ID: 9161181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Intraoral radiographic storage phosphor image mean pixel values and signal-to-noise ratio: effects of calibration.
    Hayakawa Y; Farman AG; Kelly MS; Kuroyanagi K
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Nov; 86(5):601-5. PubMed ID: 9830656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Sensitometric response of the Sens-A-Ray, a charge-coupled imaging device, to changes in beam energy.
    Goshima T; Goshima Y; Scarfe WC; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Jan; 25(1):17-8. PubMed ID: 9084280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Reproducibility of pixel values for two photostimulable phosphor plates in consecutive standardized scannings.
    Freitas P; Yaedú RY; Rubira-Bullen IR; Escarpinati M; Vieira MC; Schiabel H; Lauris JR
    Braz Oral Res; 2006; 20(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 17119702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Influence of geometric distortion and exposure parameters on sensitivity of digital subtraction radiography.
    Rudolph DJ; White SC; Mankovich NJ
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1987 Nov; 64(5):631-7. PubMed ID: 3313154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: a comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems.
    Sun Z; Lin C; Tyan Y; Ng KH
    Clin Imaging; 2012; 36(4):279-86. PubMed ID: 22726965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Image quality in digital radiographic systems.
    de Almeida SM; de Oliveira AE; Ferreira RI; Bóscolo FN
    Braz Dent J; 2003; 14(2):136-41. PubMed ID: 12964659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.