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 *

204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14655949)

  • 21. Performance of a 41 x 41 cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector designed for angiographic and R&F imaging applications.
    Granfors PR; Aufrichtig R; Possin GE; Giambattista BW; Huang ZS; Liu J; Ma B
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2715-26. PubMed ID: 14596310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Performance of a high fill factor, indirect detection prototype flat-panel imager for mammography.
    El-Mohri Y; Antonuk LE; Zhao Q; Wang Y; Li Y; Du H; Sawant A
    Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):315-27. PubMed ID: 17278517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography.
    Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Ferrari P; Tassoni D
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1719-31. PubMed ID: 12906189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Signal and noise transfer properties of CMOS based active pixel flat panel imager coupled to structured CsI:Tl.
    Arvanitis CD; Bohndiek SE; Blakesley J; Olivo A; Speller RD
    Med Phys; 2009 Jan; 36(1):116-26. PubMed ID: 19235380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Solid-state fluoroscopic imager for high-resolution angiography: parallel-cascaded linear systems analysis.
    Vedantham S; Karellas A; Suryanarayanan S
    Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):1258-68. PubMed ID: 15191318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector.
    Zhao W; Ji WG; Debrie A; Rowlands JA
    Med Phys; 2003 Feb; 30(2):254-63. PubMed ID: 12607843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a developmental detector for digital mammography.
    Williams MB; Simoni PU; Smilowitz L; Stanton M; Phillips W; Stewart A
    Med Phys; 1999 Nov; 26(11):2273-85. PubMed ID: 10587208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. X-ray imaging performance of structured cesium iodide scintillators.
    Zhao W; Ristic G; Rowlands JA
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2594-605. PubMed ID: 15487742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. DQE analysis on a dual detector phase x-ray imaging system.
    Zhang D; Liu H; Wu X
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(18):5165-76. PubMed ID: 18723931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors.
    Ghetti C; Borrini A; Ortenzia O; Rossi R; Ordóñez PL
    Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 18383665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems.
    Samei E; Flynn MJ
    Med Phys; 2003 Apr; 30(4):608-22. PubMed ID: 12722813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of the microangiographic fluoroscope (MAF) using generalized system performance metrics.
    Jain A; Bednarek DR; Rudin S
    Med Phys; 2013 Mar; 40(3):031915. PubMed ID: 23464330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A comparison of x-ray detectors for mouse CT imaging.
    Goertzen AL; Nagarkar V; Street RA; Paulus MJ; Boone JM; Cherry SR
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5251-65. PubMed ID: 15656275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector.
    Saunders RS; Samei E; Jesneck JL; Lo JY
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):588-99. PubMed ID: 15789606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A method for determining the modulation transfer function from thick microwire profiles measured with x-ray microcomputed tomography.
    Nakaya Y; Kawata Y; Niki N; Umetatni K; Ohmatsu H; Moriyama N
    Med Phys; 2012 Jul; 39(7):4347-64. PubMed ID: 22830768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A time-delay integration charge-coupled device camera for slot-scanned digital radiography.
    Holdsworth DW; Gerson RK; Fenster A
    Med Phys; 1990; 17(5):876-86. PubMed ID: 2233575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Performance of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) used in radiotherapy: image quality and dose measurements.
    Cremers F; Frenzel T; Kausch C; Albers D; Schönborn T; Schmidt R
    Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):985-96. PubMed ID: 15191282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Scanning-slit photon counting x-ray imaging system using a microchannel plate detector.
    Shikhaliev PM; Xu T; Le H; Molloi S
    Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):1061-71. PubMed ID: 15191293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Determination of the modulation transfer function using the edge method: influence of scattered radiation.
    Neitzel U; Buhr E; Hilgers G; Granfors PR
    Med Phys; 2004 Dec; 31(12):3485-91. PubMed ID: 15651631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.