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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11487848)

  • 41. Clinical experience with an advanced laser digitizer for cost-effective digital radiography.
    MacMahon H; Xu XW; Hoffmann KR; Giger ML; Yoshimura H; Doi K; Carlin M; Kano A; Yao L; Abe K
    Radiographics; 1993 May; 13(3):635-45; discussion 645-6. PubMed ID: 8316670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics.
    Cowen AR; Kengyelics SM; Davies AG
    Clin Radiol; 2008 May; 63(5):487-98. PubMed ID: 18374710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The evolution of digital radiography: from storage phosphors to flat-panel detectors.
    Porcelli A; Maggi F; Spalvieri S; Meduri A; Marano P
    Rays; 2003; 28(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 14509175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. [Series: Practical Evaluation of Clinical Image Quality (4): Determination of Image Quality in Digital Radiography System].
    Katayama R
    Igaku Butsuri; 2016; 36(3):166-172. PubMed ID: 28442655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Quality assurance tests for digital radiography in general dental practice.
    Greenall C; Drage N; Ager M
    Dent Update; 2014 Mar; 41(2):126-8, 131-4. PubMed ID: 24783881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Evaluating radiographic parameters for mobile chest computed radiography: phantoms, image quality and effective dose.
    Rill LN; Brateman L; Arreola M
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2727-35. PubMed ID: 14596311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Chest radiographic image quality: comparison of asymmetric screen-film, digital storage phosphor, and digital selenium drum systems--preliminary study.
    Beute GH; Flynn MJ; Eyler WR; Samei E; Spizarny DL; Zylak CJ
    Radiographics; 1998; 18(3):745-54. PubMed ID: 9599395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Use of a simple Leeds test object for rapid assessment of image intensifiers.
    Grant AM; Kehoe TM; Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1987 Oct; 60(718):1019-21. PubMed ID: 3676644
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: initial evaluation.
    Geijer H; Beckman K; Jonsson B; Andersson T; Persliden J
    Radiology; 2001 Feb; 218(2):402-10. PubMed ID: 11161153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Degradation of storage phosphor images due to scanning delay.
    Akdeniz BG; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Mar; 35(2):74-7. PubMed ID: 16549432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Clinical aspects of quality criteria in digital radiography.
    Vetter S; Strecker EP
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):33-6. PubMed ID: 11487839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Storage phosphor radiographs vs conventional films: interpreters' perceptions of diagnostic quality.
    Fuhrman CR; Gur D; Good B; Rockette H; Cooperstein LA; Feist JH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 May; 150(5):1011-4. PubMed ID: 3258701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Evaluation of image quality in portal imaging using a combination of a storage phosphor plate and diagnostic cassette.
    Fujita H; Yamaguchi M; Fujioka T; Fukuda H; Murase K
    Br J Radiol; 2009 Jun; 82(978):504-8. PubMed ID: 19153183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure.
    Hildebolt CF; Fletcher G; Yokoyama-Crothers N; Conover GL; Vannier MW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9442600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A critical overview of acceptance testing using various measured indices.
    Dowling A; Kenny T; Malone J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):53-8. PubMed ID: 11487843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose.
    Ng KH; Jamal N; DeWerd L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006; 121(4):445-51. PubMed ID: 16709704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. A figure of merit for the assessment of image intensifier systems.
    McRobbie DW; Hancock AP; Castellano IA
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Oct; 65(778):878-84. PubMed ID: 1422661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Detection of approximal caries with a storage phosphor system. A comparison of enhanced digital images with dental X-ray film.
    Møystad A; Svanaes DB; Risnes S; Larheim TA; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Sep; 25(4):202-6. PubMed ID: 9084274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Use of a line-pair resolution phantom for comprehensive quality assurance of electronic portal imaging devices based on fundamental imaging metrics.
    Gopal A; Samant SS
    Med Phys; 2009 Jun; 36(6):2006-15. PubMed ID: 19610289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
    Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.