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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12502050)

  • 1. Understanding the limitations of ultrasonic backscatter measurements from microbubble populations.
    Sboros V; Ramnarine KV; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Phys Med Biol; 2002 Dec; 47(23):4287-99. PubMed ID: 12502050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The behaviour of individual contrast agent microbubbles.
    Sboros V; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2003 May; 29(5):687-94. PubMed ID: 12754068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Contrast agent stability: a continuous B-mode imaging approach.
    Sboros V; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2001 Oct; 27(10):1367-77. PubMed ID: 11731050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The dependence of ultrasound contrast agents backscatter on acoustic pressure: theory versus experiment.
    Sboros V; MacDonald CA; Pye SD; Moran CM; Gomatam J; McDicken WN
    Ultrasonics; 2002 May; 40(1-8):579-83. PubMed ID: 12160005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An in vitro study of a microbubble contrast agent using a clinical ultrasound imaging system.
    Sboros V; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Jan; 49(1):159-73. PubMed ID: 14971779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pressure-dependent attenuation and scattering of phospholipid-coated microbubbles at low acoustic pressures.
    Emmer M; Vos HJ; Goertz DE; van Wamel A; Versluis M; de Jong N
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2009 Jan; 35(1):102-11. PubMed ID: 18829153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An in vitro system for the study of ultrasound contrast agents using a commercial imaging system.
    Sboros V; Moran CM; Anderson T; Gatzoulis L; Criton A; Averkiou M; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Phys Med Biol; 2001 Dec; 46(12):3301-21. PubMed ID: 11768507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Theoretical predictions of harmonic generation from submicron ultrasound contrast agents for nonlinear biomedical ultrasound imaging.
    Zheng H; Mukdadi O; Shandas R
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Feb; 51(3):557-73. PubMed ID: 16424581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A non-linear ultrasonic scattering approach for micro bubble concentration quantification.
    Mari JM; Hibbs K; Tang M
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2007; 2007():2183-6. PubMed ID: 18002422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Acoustic properties of NC100100 and their relation with the microbubble size distribution.
    Sontum PC; Ostensen J; Dyrstad K; Hoff L
    Invest Radiol; 1999 Apr; 34(4):268-75. PubMed ID: 10196718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical relevance of pressure-dependent scattering at low acoustic pressures.
    Emmer M; Vos HJ; van Wamel A; Goertz DE; Versluis M; de Jong N
    Ultrasonics; 2007 Dec; 47(1-4):74-7. PubMed ID: 17845809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Absolute measurement of ultrasonic backscatter from single microbubbles.
    Sboros V; Pye SD; Macdonald CA; Gomatam J; Moran CM; McDicken WN
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2005 Aug; 31(8):1063-72. PubMed ID: 16085097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Acoustic and kinetic behaviour of definity in mice exposed to high frequency ultrasound.
    Stapleton S; Goodman H; Zhou YQ; Cherin E; Henkelman RM; Burns PN; Foster FS
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2009 Feb; 35(2):296-307. PubMed ID: 18950930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bubble dynamics involved in ultrasonic imaging.
    Postema M; Schmitz G
    Expert Rev Mol Diagn; 2006 May; 6(3):493-502. PubMed ID: 16706749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quantification of microbubble destruction of three fluorocarbon-filled ultrasonic contrast agents.
    Moran CM; Anderson T; Pye SD; Sboros V; McDicken WN
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2000 May; 26(4):629-39. PubMed ID: 10856626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of Acoustic Parameters and Microbubble Concentration on the Likelihood of Encapsulated Microbubble Coalescence.
    Le DQ; Papadopoulou V; Dayton PA
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2021 Oct; 47(10):2980-2989. PubMed ID: 34344561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Combining Ultrasound and Capillary-Embedded T-Junction Microfluidic Devices to Scale Up the Production of Narrow-Sized Microbubbles through Acoustic Fragmentation.
    Khan AH; Jiang X; Kaushik A; Nair HS; Edirisinghe M; Mercado-Shekhar KP; Shekhar H; Dalvi SV
    Langmuir; 2022 Aug; 38(33):10288-10304. PubMed ID: 35943351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of static pressure on acoustic transmittance of Albunex microbubble suspensions.
    Brayman AA; Azadniv M; Miller MW; Meltzer RS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1996 Apr; 99(4 Pt 1):2403-8. PubMed ID: 8730086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Ultrasound attenuation in encapsulated microbubble suspensions: The multiple scattering effects.
    Chen J; Zhu Z
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2006 Jun; 32(6):961-9. PubMed ID: 16785017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The acoustics of diagnostic microbubbles: dissipative effects and heat deposition.
    Hilgenfeldt S; Lohse D
    Ultrasonics; 2000 Mar; 38(1-8):99-104. PubMed ID: 10829637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.