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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10659739)

  • 1. A lesion detectability simulation method for digital x-ray imaging.
    Cooper VN; Boone JM; Seibert JA
    Med Phys; 2000 Jan; 27(1):66-74. PubMed ID: 10659739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
    Boyce SJ; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Signal detectability in digital radiography: spatial domain figures of merit.
    Gagne RM; Boswell JS; Myers KJ
    Med Phys; 2003 Aug; 30(8):2180-93. PubMed ID: 12945984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of lossy compression on lesion detection: predictions of the nonprewhitening matched filter.
    Zhao B; Schwarz LH; Kijewski PK
    Med Phys; 1998 Sep; 25(9):1621-4. PubMed ID: 9775366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Image quality of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector.
    Neitzel U; Maack I; Günther-Kohfahl S
    Med Phys; 1994 Apr; 21(4):509-16. PubMed ID: 8058016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The relationship between pixel value and beam quality in photostimulable phosphor imaging.
    Tucker DM; Rezentes PS
    Med Phys; 1997 Jun; 24(6):887-93. PubMed ID: 9198024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities.
    Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Diaz O; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Signal-to-noise ratio and spatial resolution in x-ray electronic imagers: is the MTF a relevant parameter?
    Moy JP
    Med Phys; 2000 Jan; 27(1):86-93. PubMed ID: 10659741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A quantitative method for evaluating the detectability of lesions in digital mammography.
    Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Marchal G; Bosmans H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):214-8. PubMed ID: 18319282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Impact of resolution and noise characteristics of digital radiographic detectors on the detectability of lung nodules.
    Saunders RS; Samei E; Hoeschen C
    Med Phys; 2004 Jun; 31(6):1603-13. PubMed ID: 15259665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 13. Effect of simple structured noise on the detectability of simulated stenotic lesions.
    Ohara K; Doi K; Metz CE; Giger ML
    Med Phys; 1989; 16(1):14-21. PubMed ID: 2646515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Amorphous In-Ga-Zn-O thin-film transistor active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Zhao C; Kanicki J
    Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091902. PubMed ID: 25186389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. ROC and LROC analyses of the effects of lesion contrast, size, and signal-to-noise ratio on detectability in PET images.
    Farquhar TH; Llacer J; Sayre J; Tai YC; Hoffman EJ
    J Nucl Med; 2000 Apr; 41(4):745-54. PubMed ID: 10768578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging.
    Gong X; Glick SJ; Liu B; Vedula AA; Thacker S
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1041-52. PubMed ID: 16696481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems.
    Metz CE; Wagner RF; Doi K; Brown DG; Nishikawa RM; Myers KJ
    Med Phys; 1995 Jul; 22(7):1057-61. PubMed ID: 7565380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comprehensive physical image quality evaluation of a selenium based digital x-ray imaging system for thorax radiography.
    Launders JH; Kengyelics SM; Cowen AR
    Med Phys; 1998 Jun; 25(6):986-97. PubMed ID: 9650189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Optimization of detector pixel size for stent visualization in x-ray fluoroscopy.
    Jiang Y; Wilson DL
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):668-78. PubMed ID: 16878570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantification of the effect of system and object parameters on edge enhancement in phase-contrast radiography.
    Donnelly EF; Price RR; Pickens DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Nov; 30(11):2888-96. PubMed ID: 14655935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.