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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10519298)

  • 1. Radiograph quality evaluation for exposure variables--a review.
    Kirberger RM
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 1999; 40(3):220-6. PubMed ID: 10519298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Identification and effects of common errors and artifacts on the perceived quality of radiographs.
    Nuth EK; Armbrust LJ; Roush JK; Biller DS
    J Am Vet Med Assoc; 2014 Apr; 244(8):961-7. PubMed ID: 24697774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Comparative evaluation of six different body regions of the dog using analog and digital radiography].
    Meyer-Lindenberg A; Ebermaier C; Wolvekamp P; Tellhelm B; Meutstege FJ; Lang J; Hartung K; Fehr M; Nolte I
    Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2008; 121(5-6):216-27. PubMed ID: 18557526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluating radiographic parameters for mobile chest computed radiography: phantoms, image quality and effective dose.
    Rill LN; Brateman L; Arreola M
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2727-35. PubMed ID: 14596311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical applications of basic x-ray physics principles.
    Schueler BA
    Radiographics; 1998; 18(3):731-44; quiz 729. PubMed ID: 9599394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Comparison of the image quality of conventional and digital radiography in lizards. Mammography technique versus digital detector system].
    Bochmann M; Ludewig E; Pees M
    Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere; 2011; 39(4):259-67. PubMed ID: 22143664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [The use of a test phantom in step-shaped forms (test steps) for the clarification of different problem situations in x-ray diagnosis. 1. The use of test steps for the estimation of image quality after modified darkroom technics].
    Parisot M
    Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 1990 Mar; 103(3):92-4. PubMed ID: 2317188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Experimental and theoretical x-ray imaging performance comparison of iodine and lanthanide contrast agents.
    Cardinal HN; Holdsworth DW; Drangova M; Hobbs BB; Fenster A
    Med Phys; 1993; 20(1):15-31. PubMed ID: 8455493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Radiographic artifacts.
    Kirberger RM; Roos CJ
    J S Afr Vet Assoc; 1995 Jun; 66(2):85-94. PubMed ID: 8544168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A review of portal screen-film technology and five radiologists' evaluations of some existing products.
    Walker MA; Steinheimer DN; Weir VA; Homco LD; Green RW; Morris EL; Hess ME
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 1999; 40(3):318-22. PubMed ID: 10519314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessment of the quality of radiographs in 44 veterinary clinics in Great Britain.
    Ewers RS; Hofmann-Parisot M
    Vet Rec; 2000 Jul; 147(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 10975345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Investigating the use of an antiscatter grid in chest radiography for average adults with a computed radiography imaging system.
    Moore CS; Wood TJ; Avery G; Balcam S; Needler L; Smith A; Saunderson JR; Beavis AW
    Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140613. PubMed ID: 25571914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Endodontic measurement accuracy and perceived radiograph quality: effects of film speed and density.
    Sheaffer JC; Eleazer PD; Scheetz JP; Clark SJ; Farman AG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Oct; 96(4):441-8. PubMed ID: 14561969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Inter-observer variation in masked and unmasked images for quality evaluation of clinical radiographs.
    Tingberg A; Eriksson F; Medin J; Besjakov J; Båth M; Håkansson M; Sandborg M; Almén A; Lanhede B; Alm-Carlsson G; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):62-8. PubMed ID: 15933082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Technical innovation changes standard radiographic protocols in veterinary medicine: is it necessary to obtain two dorsoproximal-palmarodistal oblique views of the equine foot when using computerised radiography systems?
    Whitlock J; Dixon J; Sherlock C; Tucker R; Bolt DM; Weller R
    Vet Rec; 2016 May; 178(21):531. PubMed ID: 27114406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optimization of exposure in panoramic radiography while maintaining image quality using adaptive filtering.
    Svenson B; Larsson L; Båth M
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2016; 74(3):229-35. PubMed ID: 26478956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A paediatric X-ray exposure chart.
    Knight SP
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2014 Sep; 61(3):191-201. PubMed ID: 26229655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
    Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Development of a zoomorphic test specimen for constancy testing on digital X-ray systems in veterinary radiology.
    Pöhlmann G; Lüpke M; Seiler C; Wefstaedt P; Bach JP; Nolte I; Seifert H
    Acta Vet Scand; 2019 Aug; 61(1):40. PubMed ID: 31429771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Association between subjective evaluation and physical parameters for radiographic images optimization.
    Alves AF; Alvarez M; Ribeiro SM; Duarte SB; Miranda JR; Pina DR
    Phys Med; 2016 Jan; 32(1):123-32. PubMed ID: 26573131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.