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 *

69 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15827822)

  • 1. A clinical evaluation of the image quality computer program, CoCIQ.
    Norrman E; Gårdestig M; Persliden J; Geijer H
    J Digit Imaging; 2005 Jun; 18(2):138-44. PubMed ID: 15827822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Image-quality figure evaluator based on contrast-detail phantom in radiography.
    Wang CL; Wang CM; Chan YK; Chen RT
    Int J Med Robot; 2012 Jun; 8(2):169-77. PubMed ID: 22213357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images--comparison with subjective visual assessment.
    Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Honey I; Blake P
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(23):5743-57. PubMed ID: 16306665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fractal-feature distance as a substitute for observer performance index in contrast-detail examination.
    Imai K; Ikeda M; Enchi Y; Niimi T
    Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):541-5. PubMed ID: 17689214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of advanced iterative reconstruction methods for SPECT/CT.
    Knoll P; Kotalova D; Köchle G; Kuzelka I; Minear G; Mirzaei S; Sámal M; Zadrazil L; Bergmann H
    Z Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 22(1):58-69. PubMed ID: 21723716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quality assurance (QA) procedures for software: evaluation of an ADC quality system.
    Efstathopoulos EP; Benekos O; Molfetas M; Charou E; Kottou S; Argentos S; Kelekis NL
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):291-7. PubMed ID: 16464840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Assessment and optimisation of the image quality of chest-radiography systems.
    Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Doehring W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):264-8. PubMed ID: 15933119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment.
    Thijssen JM; Weijers G; de Korte CL
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 33(3):460-71. PubMed ID: 17275983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimization of a contrast-detail-based method for electronic image display quality evaluation.
    Hangiandreou NJ; Fetterly KA; Felmlee JP
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 May; 12(2):60-7. PubMed ID: 10342248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of room illuminance on monitor black level luminance and monitor calibration.
    Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Thomas JA; Romanyukha A
    J Digit Imaging; 2003 Dec; 16(4):350-5. PubMed ID: 14747935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quantitative assessment of computed radiography quality control parameters.
    Rampado O; Isoardi P; Ropolo R
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Mar; 51(6):1577-93. PubMed ID: 16510964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Investigation of possible methods for equipment self-tests in digital radiology.
    Zoetelief J; Idris HH; Jansen JT
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):269-73. PubMed ID: 16461526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Monitor assessment of digitalized and post-processed portal films compared to conventional films presented on a light box].
    Wachter S; Gerstner N; Colotto A; Battmann A; Gahleitner A; Haverkamp U; Pötter R
    Strahlenther Onkol; 1998 Nov; 174(11):589-96. PubMed ID: 9830441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Display of merged multimodality brain images using interleaved pixels with independent color scales.
    Rehm K; Strother SC; Anderson JR; Schaper KA; Rottenberg DA
    J Nucl Med; 1994 Nov; 35(11):1815-21. PubMed ID: 7965164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluations of UltraiQ software for objective ultrasound image quality assessment using images from a commercial scanner.
    Long Z; Tradup DJ; Stekel SF; Gorny KR; Hangiandreou NJ
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 19(2):298-304. PubMed ID: 29336119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Novel software-based and validated evaluation method for objective quantification of bone regeneration in experimental bone defects].
    Schönberger T; Kasten P; Fechner K; Südkamp NP; Pearce S; Niemeyer P
    Z Orthop Unfall; 2010 Jan; 148(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 20135589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Vertebral morphometry derived from digital images.
    Rosol MS; Cohen GL; Halpern EF; Chew FS; Kattapuram SV; Palmer WE; Dupuy DE; Rosenthal DI
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Dec; 167(6):1545-9. PubMed ID: 8956594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An interactive method of assessing the characteristics of softcopy display using observer performance tests.
    Wang J; Peng Q
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():216-8. PubMed ID: 12105732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Development and evaluation of different methods to assess download and display time of image web systems.
    Pietsch M; Schlaefke A; Vogl TJ; Bergh B
    J Digit Imaging; 2006 Dec; 19(4):336-45. PubMed ID: 16964562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.