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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15152683)

  • 1. A novel method for producing x-ray test objects and phantoms.
    Theodorakou C; Horrocks JA; Marshall NW; Speller RD
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Apr; 49(8):1423-38. PubMed ID: 15152683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Demonstration of digital radiographs by means of ink jet-printed paper copies: pilot study.
    Kirkhorn T; Kehler M; Nilsson J; Lyttkens K; Andersson B; Holmer NG
    J Digit Imaging; 1992 Nov; 5(4):246-51. PubMed ID: 1457540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Development of a neonate X-ray phantom for 2D imaging applications using single-tone inkjet printing.
    Cruz-Bastida JP; Marshall EL; Reiser N; George J; Pearson EA; Feinstein KA; Al-Hallaq HA; Burton CS; Beaulieu D; MacDougall RD; Reiser I
    Med Phys; 2021 Sep; 48(9):4944-4954. PubMed ID: 34255871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A novel physical anthropomorphic breast phantom for 2D and 3D x-ray imaging.
    Ikejimba LC; Graff CG; Rosenthal S; Badal A; Ghammraoui B; Lo JY; Glick SJ
    Med Phys; 2017 Feb; 44(2):407-416. PubMed ID: 27992059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reproducing two-dimensional mammograms with three-dimensional printed phantoms.
    Badal A; Clark M; Ghammraoui B
    J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2018 Jul; 5(3):033501. PubMed ID: 30035152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the image quality of ink-jet printed paper copies of digital chest radiographs as compared with film: a receiver operating characteristic study.
    Lyttkens K; Kirkhorn T; Kehler M; Andersson B; Ebbesen A; Hochbergs P; Jarlman O; Lindberg CG; Holmer NG
    J Digit Imaging; 1994 May; 7(2):61-8. PubMed ID: 8075185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical implementation of x-ray phase-contrast imaging: theoretical foundations and design considerations.
    Wu X; Liu H
    Med Phys; 2003 Aug; 30(8):2169-79. PubMed ID: 12945983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Subjective image quality of digital panoramic radiographs displayed on monitor and printed on various hardcopy media.
    Gijbels F; Sanderink G; Pauwels H; Jacobs R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2004 Mar; 8(1):25-9. PubMed ID: 14652733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [Display Performance of X-ray Image Output from DICOM-embedded Printer to Paper-based Hard Copy Print: Comparison with X-ray Image on LCD].
    Kidera D; Shimizu M; Ueno T; Matsushita H; Uemura T; Yoshimitsu K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2023 Aug; 79(8):775-783. PubMed ID: 37344398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing the accuracy of caries diagnosis via radiograph. Film versus print.
    Otis LL; Sherman RG
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Mar; 136(3):323-30. PubMed ID: 15819345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Physical performance and image optimization of megavoltage cone-beam CT.
    Morin O; Aubry JF; Aubin M; Chen J; Descovich M; Hashemi AB; Pouliot J
    Med Phys; 2009 Apr; 36(4):1421-32. PubMed ID: 19472649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reproduction of radiologic images on plain paper.
    Ibbott GS; Zhang Y; Mohiuddin M; Adams E
    Radiographics; 1998; 18(3):755-60. PubMed ID: 9599396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of area x-ray beam equalization on image quality and dose in digital mammography.
    Wong J; Xu T; Husain A; Le H; Molloi S
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Aug; 49(16):3539-57. PubMed ID: 15446786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Production of radioactive quality assurance phantoms using a standard inkjet printer.
    van Staden JA; du Raan H; Lötter MG; van Aswegen A; Herbst CP
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Aug; 52(15):N329-37. PubMed ID: 17634634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Calibration of a radioactive ink-based stack phantom and its applications in nuclear medicine.
    El-Ali H; Ljungberg M; Strand SE; Palmer J; Malmgren L; Nilsson J
    Cancer Biother Radiopharm; 2003 Apr; 18(2):201-7. PubMed ID: 12804045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of dry laser printer versus paper printer in full-field digital mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Guo X; Rong D; Kang R; Mao G; Liu J; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2010 Apr; 51(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 20092369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A GPU Simulation Tool for Training and Optimisation in 2D Digital X-Ray Imaging.
    Gallio E; Rampado O; Gianaria E; Bianchi SD; Ropolo R
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(11):e0141497. PubMed ID: 26545097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.