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 *

39 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11928163)

  • 1. Energy dependence of photostimulable phosphor.
    Chu RY; Christian EN; Eaton BG
    Radiol Technol; 2002; 73(4):299-304. PubMed ID: 11928163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
    Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences.
    Heo MS; Choi DH; Benavides E; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 19272812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.
    Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
    Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The relationship between pixel value and beam quality in photostimulable phosphor imaging.
    Tucker DM; Rezentes PS
    Med Phys; 1997 Jun; 24(6):887-93. PubMed ID: 9198024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The physics of computed radiography: measurements of pulse height spectra of photostimulable phosphor screens using prompt luminescence.
    Watt KN; Yan K; DeCrescenzo G; Rowlands JA
    Med Phys; 2005 Dec; 32(12):3589-98. PubMed ID: 16475757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology.
    Fernandez JM; Ordiales JM; Guibelalde E; Prieto C; Vano E
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):140-3. PubMed ID: 18283060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Evaluation of the edge enhancement effect of phase contrast imaging using newly-developed photostimulable phosphor plate].
    Matsuo S; Morishita J; Katafuchi T; Fujita H
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2012; 68(5):563-72. PubMed ID: 22687901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Energy-resolved computed tomography: first experimental results.
    Shikhaliev PM
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Oct; 53(20):5595-613. PubMed ID: 18799830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Effects of aluminum-copper alloy filtration on photon spectra, air kerma rate and image contrast.
    Gonçalves A; Rollo JM; Gonçalves M; Haiter Neto F; Bóscolo FN
    Braz Dent J; 2004; 15(3):214-9. PubMed ID: 15798826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Determining air kerma from pixel values in digital mammography.
    Toroi P; Nieminen MT; Tenkanen-Rautakoski P; Varjonen M
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jun; 54(12):3865-79. PubMed ID: 19491454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Comparison of four digital and one conventional radiographic image systems for the chest in a patient study with subsequent system optimization].
    Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Reissberg S; Scherlach C; Döhring W
    Rofo; 2005 Feb; 177(2):272-8. PubMed ID: 15666237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
    Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
    Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
    Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
    Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Characteristics of kilovoltage x-ray beams used for cone-beam computed tomography in radiation therapy.
    Ding GX; Duggan DM; Coffey CW
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(6):1595-615. PubMed ID: 17327651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of dual-energy subtraction of digital mammography images under conditions found in a commercial unit.
    Brandan ME; Ramírez-R V
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(9):2307-20. PubMed ID: 16625044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Beam hardening artefacts in computed tomography with photon counting, charge integrating and energy weighting detectors: a simulation study.
    Shikhaliev PM
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(24):5813-27. PubMed ID: 16333157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantitative analysis of the effect of energy separation in k-edge digital subtraction imaging.
    Sarnelli A; Taibi A; Baldelli P; Gambaccini M; Bravin A
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3015-26. PubMed ID: 17505086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 2.