BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12906188)

  • 1. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography.
    Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Karssemeijer N
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1712-8. PubMed ID: 12906188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
    Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
    Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Experimental evaluation of fiber-interspaced antiscatter grids for large patient imaging with digital x-ray systems.
    Fetterly KA; Schueler BA
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Aug; 52(16):4863-80. PubMed ID: 17671340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
    Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Dose reduction through gridless technique in digital full-field mammography].
    Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Berzeg S; Bick U; Fischer T; Hamm B
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):769-74. PubMed ID: 12811688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
    Chakraborty DP
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Study of digital mammographic equipments by phantom image quality.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():1994-6. PubMed ID: 17946081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
    Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Characterization of scatter in digital mammography from physical measurements.
    Leon SM; Brateman LF; Wagner LK
    Med Phys; 2014 Jun; 41(6):061901. PubMed ID: 24877812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters.
    Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
    Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
    Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
    Baydush AH; Floyd CE
    Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. X-ray scattering in full-field digital mammography.
    Nykänen K; Siltanen S
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1864-73. PubMed ID: 12906205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography.
    Aslund M; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Danielsson M
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):933-40. PubMed ID: 16696469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
    Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
    Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.