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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11318318)

  • 1. Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems.
    Samei E; Seibert JA; Willis CE; Flynn MJ; Mah E; Junck KL
    Med Phys; 2001 Mar; 28(3):361-71. PubMed ID: 11318318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quantitative assessment of computed radiography quality control parameters.
    Rampado O; Isoardi P; Ropolo R
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Mar; 51(6):1577-93. PubMed ID: 16510964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Acceptance testing of Computed Radiography systems.
    Riccardi L; Cauzzo MC; Fabbris R
    Radiol Med; 2005; 110(5-6):676-88. PubMed ID: 16437053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Calibrating automatic exposure control devices for digital radiography.
    Doyle P; Martin CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5475-85. PubMed ID: 17047264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Performance evaluation of soft copy display systems according to AAPM TG18 protocol.
    Olgar T; Kamberli E
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2013 Jun; 36(2):231-41. PubMed ID: 23729181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation and testing of computed radiography systems.
    Charnock P; Connolly PA; Hughes D; Moores BM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):201-7. PubMed ID: 15933109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography.
    Steiding C; Kolditz D; Kalender WA
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031901. PubMed ID: 24593719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. AEC set-up optimisation with computed radiography imaging.
    Mazzocchi S; Belli G; Busoni S; Gori C; Menchi I; Salucci P; Taddeucci A; Zatelli G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):169-73. PubMed ID: 16461503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantitative radiographic imaging using a photostimulable phosphor system.
    Floyd CE; Chotas HG; Dobbins JT; Ravin CE
    Med Phys; 1990; 17(3):454-9. PubMed ID: 2385203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Automatic quantitative low contrast analysis of digital chest phantom radiographs.
    Kwan AL; Filipow LJ; Le LH
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):312-20. PubMed ID: 12674230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency.
    Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Pattacini P; Ginocchi V; Iori M
    Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2617-27. PubMed ID: 22559632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation.
    Busch HP; Faulkner K
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):143-7. PubMed ID: 16461521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Technical assessment of a cone-beam CT scanner for otolaryngology imaging: image quality, dose, and technique protocols.
    Xu J; Reh DD; Carey JP; Mahesh M; Siewerdsen JH
    Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4932-42. PubMed ID: 22894419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems.
    Samei E; Flynn MJ
    Med Phys; 2002 Apr; 29(4):447-59. PubMed ID: 11991117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Recommendations on performance characteristics of diagnostic exposure meters: report of AAPM Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Task Group No. 6.
    Wagner LK; Fontenla DP; Kimme-Smith C; Rothenberg LN; Shepard J; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 1992; 19(1):231-41. PubMed ID: 1620054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. SU-E-I-101: Initial Implementation and Evaluation of AAPM TG-150 Draft Image Receptor Non-Uniformity Testing Recommendations.
    Dave J; Gingold E; Yorkston J; Bercha I; Goldman L; Walz-Flannigan A; Willis C
    Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part5):3648. PubMed ID: 28517653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
    Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Tests for evaluating laser film digitizers.
    Meeder RJ; Jaffray DA; Munro P
    Med Phys; 1995 May; 22(5):635-42. PubMed ID: 7643804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.