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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15551554)

  • 1. The contrast-detail behaviour of a photostimulable phosphor based computed radiography system.
    Marshall NW; Faulkner K; Busch HP; Lehmann KJ
    Phys Med Biol; 1994 Dec; 39(12):2289-303. PubMed ID: 15551554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Computed radiography as a gamma ray detector--dose response and applications.
    O'Keeffe DS; McLeod RW
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Aug; 49(16):3559-72. PubMed ID: 15446787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.
    Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
    Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
    Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of a photostimulable phosphor system with film for dental radiology.
    Huda W; Rill LN; Benn DK; Pettigrew JC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Jun; 83(6):725-31. PubMed ID: 9195631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors.
    Mackenzie A; Honey ID
    Med Phys; 2007 Aug; 34(8):3345-57. PubMed ID: 17879798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology.
    Fernandez JM; Ordiales JM; Guibelalde E; Prieto C; Vano E
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):140-3. PubMed ID: 18283060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Direct comparison of conventional and computed radiography with a dual-image recording technique.
    MacMahon H; Sanada S; Doi K; Giger M; Xu XW; Yin FF; Montner SM; Carlin M
    Radiographics; 1991 Mar; 11(2):259-68. PubMed ID: 2028063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimising automatic exposure control in computed radiography and the impact on patient dose.
    Doyle P; Gentle D; Martin CJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):236-9. PubMed ID: 15933114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluating radiographic parameters for mobile chest computed radiography: phantoms, image quality and effective dose.
    Rill LN; Brateman L; Arreola M
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2727-35. PubMed ID: 14596311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Relationship between radiation dose reduction and image quality change in photostimulable phosphor luminescence X-ray imaging systems.
    Sakurai T; Kawamata R; Kozai Y; Kaku Y; Nakamura K; Saito M; Wakao H; Kashima I
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 May; 39(4):207-15. PubMed ID: 20395461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography.
    Doyle P; Martin CJ; Gentle D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):269-72. PubMed ID: 15933120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison between a built-in "dual side" chest imaging device and a standard "single side" CR.
    Riccardi L; Cauzzo MC; Fabbris R; Tonini E; Righetto R
    Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):119-26. PubMed ID: 17278497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
    Marshall NW; Lemmens K; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. AEC set-up optimisation with computed radiography imaging.
    Mazzocchi S; Belli G; Busoni S; Gori C; Menchi I; Salucci P; Taddeucci A; Zatelli G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):169-73. PubMed ID: 16461503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of the threshold detail detectability of a screen-film combination and computed radiology under conditions relevant to high-kVp chest radiography.
    Launders JH; Cowen AR
    Phys Med Biol; 1995 Aug; 40(8):1393-8. PubMed ID: 7480121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging.
    De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Smeets P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):174-7. PubMed ID: 16461499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.