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 *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10847388)

  • 1. Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays.
    Pavlicek W; Owen JM; Peter MB
    J Digit Imaging; 2000 May; 13(2 Suppl 1):155-61. PubMed ID: 10847388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Angular dependence of the luminance and contrast in medical monochrome liquid crystal displays.
    Badano A; Flynn MJ; Martin S; Kanicki J
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2602-13. PubMed ID: 14596296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview: display systems.
    Badano A
    Radiographics; 2004; 24(3):879-89. PubMed ID: 15143237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report.
    Samei E; Badano A; Chakraborty D; Compton K; Cornelius C; Corrigan K; Flynn MJ; Hemminger B; Hangiandreou N; Johnson J; Moxley-Stevens DM; Pavlicek W; Roehrig H; Rutz L; Shepard J; Uzenoff RA; Wang J; Willis CE;
    Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1205-25. PubMed ID: 15895604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Optimization of reading conditions for flat panel displays.
    Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Maslennikov A; Mitchell CA; Romanyukha A
    J Digit Imaging; 2006 Jun; 19(2):181-7. PubMed ID: 16437286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessment of flat panel LCD primary class display performance based on AAPM TG 18 acceptance protocol.
    Jung H; Kim HJ; Kang WS; Yoo SK; Fujioka K; Hasegawa M; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2155-64. PubMed ID: 15305470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Noise in flat-panel displays with subpixel structure.
    Badano A; Gagne RM; Jennings RJ; Drilling SE; Imhoff BR; Muka E
    Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):715-23. PubMed ID: 15124988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cathode ray tube quality control and acceptance testing program: initial results for clinical PACS displays.
    Groth DS; Bernatz SN; Fetterly KA; Hangiandreou NJ
    Radiographics; 2001; 21(3):719-32. PubMed ID: 11353118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures.
    Silosky MS; Marsh RM; Scherzinger AL
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Jul; 17(4):334-341. PubMed ID: 27455501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of viewing angle on luminance and contrast for a five-million-pixel monochrome display and a nine-million-pixel color liquid crystal display.
    Fifadara DH; Averbukh A; Channin DS; Badano A
    J Digit Imaging; 2004 Dec; 17(4):264-70. PubMed ID: 15692870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. SoftCopy Display Quality Assurance Program at Texas Children's Hospital.
    Ly CK
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():33-40. PubMed ID: 12105695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Goniometric and conoscopic measurements of angular display contrast for one-, three-, five-, and nine-million-pixel medical liquid crystal displays.
    Badano A; Fifadara DH
    Med Phys; 2004 Dec; 31(12):3452-60. PubMed ID: 15651628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Resolution and noise measurements of five CRT and LCD medical displays.
    Saunders RS; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):308-19. PubMed ID: 16532935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology.
    Roehrig H; Krupinski EA; Furukawa T
    J Digit Imaging; 2001 Sep; 14(3):142-8. PubMed ID: 11720336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. High-fidelity electronic display of digital radiographs.
    Flynn MJ; Kanicki J; Badano A; Eyler WR
    Radiographics; 1999; 19(6):1653-69. PubMed ID: 10555680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. PACS displays: how to select the right display technology.
    Hirschorn DS; Krupinski EA; Flynn MJ
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2014 Dec; 11(12 Pt B):1270-6. PubMed ID: 25467904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations.
    Thompson DP; Koller CJ; Eatough JP
    Br J Radiol; 2007 Apr; 80(952):256-60. PubMed ID: 17038407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting.
    Wade C; Brennan PC
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Jun; 77(918):465-71. PubMed ID: 15151966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Viewing angle performance of medical liquid crystal displays.
    Samei E; Wright SL
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):645-54. PubMed ID: 16878568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology.
    Geijer H; Geijer M; Forsberg L; Kheddache S; Sund P
    J Digit Imaging; 2007 Jun; 20(2):114-21. PubMed ID: 17340227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.