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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11442103)

  • 1. Quality-control issues on high-resolution diagnostic monitors.
    Parr LF; Anderson AL; Glennon BK; Fetherston P
    J Digit Imaging; 2001 Jun; 14(2 Suppl 1):22-6. PubMed ID: 11442103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Frequency and impact of high-resolution monitor failure in a filmless imaging department.
    Siegel EL; Reiner BI; Cadogan M
    J Digit Imaging; 2000 Aug; 13(3):114-8. PubMed ID: 15359749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Image quality assurance of soft copy display systems.
    Seto E; Ursani A; Cafazzo JA; Rossos PG; Easty AC
    J Digit Imaging; 2005 Dec; 18(4):280-6. PubMed ID: 15988625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Grayscale calibration and quality assurance of diagnostic monitors in a PACS system.
    Crespi A; Bonsignore F; Paruccini N; Macchi I
    Radiol Med; 2006 Sep; 111(6):863-75. PubMed ID: 16896553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Calibration of medium-resolution monochrome cathode ray tube displays for the purpose of board examinations.
    Evanoff MG; Roehrig H; Giffords RS; Capp MP; Rovinelli RJ; Hartmann WH; Merritt C
    J Digit Imaging; 2001 Jun; 14(2 Suppl 1):27-33. PubMed ID: 11442114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An interactive method of assessing the characteristics of softcopy display using observer performance tests.
    Wang J; Peng Q
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():216-8. PubMed ID: 12105732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Suspension criteria for image monitors and viewing boxes.
    Tingberg A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb; 153(2):230-5. PubMed ID: 23188811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. PACS monitors: an evolution of radiologist's viewing techniques.
    Bennett WF; Vaswani KK; Mendiola JA; Spigos DG
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():171-4. PubMed ID: 12105721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quality of 'commercial-off-the-shelf' (COTS) monitors displaying dental radiographs.
    McIlgorm DJ; Lawinski C; Ng S; McNulty JP
    Br Dent J; 2013 Dec; 215(11):E22. PubMed ID: 24309815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated medical grade monitor vs a DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) monitor for viewing 8-bit dental images.
    McIlgorm DJ; McNulty JP
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(3):20140148. PubMed ID: 25421807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of grey-scale standard display function as a calibration tool for diagnostic liquid crystal display monitors using psychophysical analysis.
    Asai Y; Shintani Y; Yamaguchi M; Uemura M; Matsumoto M; Kanamori H
    Med Biol Eng Comput; 2005 May; 43(3):319-24. PubMed ID: 16035218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Variations in performance of LCDs are still evident after DICOM gray-scale standard display calibration.
    Lowe JM; Brennan PC; Evanoff MG; McEntee MF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Jul; 195(1):181-7. PubMed ID: 20566814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Performance of primary diagnostic monitors (PDMs) over time.
    Ruuge AE; Gao Y; Erdi YE
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2019 Dec; 20(12):180-185. PubMed ID: 31833641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Imaging monitors--requirements and pitfalls].
    Simmler R
    Radiologe; 2013 Nov; 53(11):1020-2. PubMed ID: 24068292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems.
    Wang J; Langer S
    J Digit Imaging; 1997 Nov; 10(4):158-68. PubMed ID: 9399169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
    Uematsu T; Kasami M
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.