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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12730777)

  • 1. The effect of room temperature on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
    Culton NL; Pocock NA
    Osteoporos Int; 2003 Apr; 14(2):137-40. PubMed ID: 12730777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dual X-ray absorptiometry: cross-calibration of a new fan-beam system.
    Blake GM; Harrison EJ; Adams JE
    Calcif Tissue Int; 2004 Jul; 75(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 15037973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cross-calibration of GE/Lunar pencil and fan-beam dual energy densitometers--bone mineral density and body composition studies.
    Oldroyd B; Smith AH; Truscott JG
    Eur J Clin Nutr; 2003 Aug; 57(8):977-87. PubMed ID: 12879093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Manufacture and evaluation of a spine phantom used in the cross-calibration of DXA bone densitometry].
    Yang DZ; Shang JY; Song WZ; Chen J; Zhu D; Wang WZ
    Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao; 2003 Jun; 25(3):262-6. PubMed ID: 12905736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cross calibration of DXA as part of an equipment replacement program.
    Pearson D; Horton B; Green DJ
    J Clin Densitom; 2006; 9(3):287-94. PubMed ID: 16931346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers.
    Crabtree NJ; Shaw NJ; Boivin CM; Oldroyd B; Truscott JG
    Osteoporos Int; 2005 Dec; 16(12):2157-67. PubMed ID: 16234997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A study of the long-term precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry bone densitometers and implications for the validity of the least-significant-change calculation.
    Hangartner TN
    Osteoporos Int; 2007 Apr; 18(4):513-23. PubMed ID: 17136486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of BMD precision for Prodigy and Delphi spine and femur scans.
    Shepherd JA; Fan B; Lu Y; Lewiecki EM; Miller P; Genant HK
    Osteoporos Int; 2006; 17(9):1303-8. PubMed ID: 16823544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dual X-ray absorptiometry: clinical evaluation of a new cone-beam system.
    Blake GM; Knapp KM; Fogelman I
    Calcif Tissue Int; 2005 Feb; 76(2):113-20. PubMed ID: 15645160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Spine Trabecular Bone Score Precision, a Comparison Between GE Lunar Standard and High-Resolution Densitometers.
    Krueger D; Libber J; Binkley N
    J Clin Densitom; 2015; 18(2):226-32. PubMed ID: 25659179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Development of a phantom for morphometric X-ray absorptiometry.
    Rea JA; Blake GM; Fogelman I
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Apr; 74(880):341-50. PubMed ID: 11387153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of narrow-angle fan-beam and pencil-beam densitometers: in vivo and phantom study of the effect of bone density, scan mode, and tissue depth on spine measurements.
    Laskey MA; Murgatroyd PR; Prentice A
    J Clin Densitom; 2004; 7(3):341-8. PubMed ID: 15319507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of femoral neck BMD evaluation obtained using Lunar DXA and QCT with asynchronous calibration from CT colonography.
    Pickhardt PJ; Bodeen G; Brett A; Brown JK; Binkley N
    J Clin Densitom; 2015; 18(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 24880495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Discordance of longitudinal changes in bone density between densitometers.
    Frost SA; Nguyen ND; Center JR; Eisman JA; Nguyen TV
    Bone; 2007 Oct; 41(4):690-7. PubMed ID: 17870039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Correcting the magnification error of fan beam densitometers.
    Griffiths MR; Noakes KA; Pocock NA
    J Bone Miner Res; 1997 Jan; 12(1):119-23. PubMed ID: 9240734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A generalized least significant change for individuals measured on different DXA systems.
    Shepherd JA; Lu Y
    J Clin Densitom; 2007; 10(3):249-58. PubMed ID: 17616413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Follow-up of individual patients on two DXA scanners of the same manufacturer.
    Kolta S; Ravaud P; Fechtenbaum J; Dougados M; Roux C
    Osteoporos Int; 2000; 11(8):709-13. PubMed ID: 11095175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of peripheral dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: comparison with single photon absorptiometry of the forearm and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry of the spine or femur.
    Mole PA; McMurdo ME; Paterson CR
    Br J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 71(844):427-32. PubMed ID: 9659136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A DXA Whole Body Composition Cross-Calibration Experience: Evaluation With Humans, Spine, and Whole Body Phantoms.
    Krueger D; Libber J; Sanfilippo J; Yu HJ; Horvath B; Miller CG; Binkley N
    J Clin Densitom; 2016; 19(2):220-5. PubMed ID: 26071169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of four methods for cross-calibrating dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers to eliminate systematic errors when upgrading equipment.
    Finkelstein JS; Butler JP; Cleary RL; Neer RM
    J Bone Miner Res; 1994 Dec; 9(12):1945-52. PubMed ID: 7872060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.