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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11419624)

  • 1. The practical application of signal detection theory to image quality assessment in x-ray image intensifier-TV fluoroscopy.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2001 Jun; 46(6):1631-49. PubMed ID: 11419624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Measurement and correction of the effects of lag on contrast-detail test results in fluoroscopy.
    Marshall NW; Kotre CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2002 Mar; 47(6):947-60. PubMed ID: 11936180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A spatio-temporal detective quantum efficiency and its application to fluoroscopic systems.
    Friedman SN; Cunningham IA
    Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):6061-9. PubMed ID: 21158318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology.
    Siewerdsen JH; Antonuk LE; el-Mohri Y; Yorkston J; Huang W; Cunningham IA
    Med Phys; 1998 May; 25(5):614-28. PubMed ID: 9608470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: theoretical analysis of detective quantum efficiency.
    Zhao W; Rowlands JA
    Med Phys; 1997 Dec; 24(12):1819-33. PubMed ID: 9434965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The application of image quality measurements for digital angiography.
    Peterzol A; Padovani R; Quai E; Vano E; Prieto C; Aviles P
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):38-43. PubMed ID: 16461533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Technical Note: Impact on detective quantum efficiency of edge angle determination method by International Electrotechnical Commission methodology for cardiac x-ray image detectors.
    Gislason-Lee AJ; Tunstall CM; Kengyelics SK; Cowen AR; Davies AG
    Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4423-7. PubMed ID: 26233172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Performance of a 41 x 41 cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector designed for angiographic and R&F imaging applications.
    Granfors PR; Aufrichtig R; Possin GE; Giambattista BW; Huang ZS; Liu J; Ma B
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2715-26. PubMed ID: 14596310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Study of a prototype high quantum efficiency thick scintillation crystal video-electronic portal imaging device.
    Samant SS; Gopal A
    Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2783-91. PubMed ID: 16964854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Subjective and objective measures of image quality in digital fluoroscopy.
    Walsh C; Dowling A; Meade A; Malone J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):34-7. PubMed ID: 16461534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Determination of the detective quantum efficiency of a digital x-ray detector: comparison of three evaluations using a common image data set.
    Neitzel U; Günther-Kohfahl S; Borasi G; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2004 Aug; 31(8):2205-11. PubMed ID: 15377085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A quantum accounting and detective quantum efficiency analysis for video-based portal imaging.
    Bissonnette JP; Cunningham IA; Jaffray DA; Fenster A; Munro P
    Med Phys; 1997 Jun; 24(6):815-26. PubMed ID: 9198014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Strategies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat-panel imagers for diagnostic x-ray applications.
    Antonuk LE; Jee KW; El-Mohri Y; Maolinbay M; Nassif S; Rong X; Zhao Q; Siewerdsen JH; Street RA; Shah KS
    Med Phys; 2000 Feb; 27(2):289-306. PubMed ID: 10718132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. MTF and DQE enhancement using an apodized-aperture x-ray detector design.
    Nano TF; Escartin T; Ismailova E; Karim KS; Lindström J; Kim HK; Cunningham IA
    Med Phys; 2017 Sep; 44(9):4525-4535. PubMed ID: 28636792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Signal and noise transfer properties of photoelectric interactions in diagnostic x-ray imaging detectors.
    Hajdok G; Yao J; Battista JJ; Cunningham IA
    Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3601-20. PubMed ID: 17089826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Analysis of the kinestatic charge detection system as a high detective quantum efficiency electronic portal imaging device.
    Samant SS; Gopal A
    Med Phys; 2006 Sep; 33(9):3557-67. PubMed ID: 17022252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Threshold contrast detail detectability measurement of the fluoroscopic image quality of a dynamic solid-state digital x-ray image detector.
    Davies AG; Cowen AR; Kengyelics SM; Bury RF; Bruijns TJ
    Med Phys; 2001 Jan; 28(1):11-5. PubMed ID: 11213916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: construction and evaluation of a prototype real-time detector.
    Zhao W; Blevis I; Germann S; Rowlands JA; Waechter D; Huang Z
    Med Phys; 1997 Dec; 24(12):1834-43. PubMed ID: 9434966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors.
    Mackenzie A; Honey ID
    Med Phys; 2007 Aug; 34(8):3345-57. PubMed ID: 17879798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.