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: 15975754)

  • 1. A method of clustering observers with different visual characteristics.
    Niimi T; Imai K; Ikeda M; Maeda H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jan; 57(1):158-61. PubMed ID: 15975754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Information loss in visual assessments of medical images.
    Niimi T; Imai K; Maeda H; Ikeda M
    Eur J Radiol; 2007 Feb; 61(2):362-6. PubMed ID: 17067772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The application of Markov theory to contrast-detail analysis.
    Imai K; Ikeda M; Niimi T
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Feb; 13(2):152-8. PubMed ID: 16428049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Grouping of observer's visual characteristics on the basis of difference in the criteria of visual detection and selection of the fittest clustering method:verification of observer's group with radiologist-like visual characteristics].
    Niimi T; Imai K; Kamegai K; Hioki T; Mano A
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Apr; 60(4):513-9. PubMed ID: 15159670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Classification of observer-groups with cluster analysis and the criteria of visual decision for each group].
    Niimi T; Imai K; Kamegai K; Hioki T; Mano A
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2003 Oct; 59(10):1268-76. PubMed ID: 14646994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Method of duplicating film using the CR system: evaluation of detectability in a simulated nodule.
    Fukuyama A; Ando S; Maeda K; Ida K; Suzuki T; Fukuyama K; Hasegawa T
    Radiat Med; 2005 Aug; 23(5):336-40. PubMed ID: 16342906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems.
    Körner M; Treitl M; Schaetzing R; Pfeifer KJ; Reiser M; Wirth S
    Invest Radiol; 2006 Jul; 41(7):593-9. PubMed ID: 16772853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. View box luminance measurements and their effect on reader performance.
    Rill LN; Huda W; Gkanatsios NA
    Acad Radiol; 1999 Sep; 6(9):521-9. PubMed ID: 10894060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quality aspects of digital radiography in general dental practice.
    Hellén-Halme K
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 2007; (184):9-60. PubMed ID: 17645148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences.
    Heo MS; Choi DH; Benavides E; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 19272812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Influence of monitor luminance and room illumination on soft-copy reading evaluation with electronically generated contrast-detail phantom: comparison of cathode-ray tube monitor with liquid crystal display.
    Muramoto H; Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Koyama K; Fukushima H; Ishigaki T
    Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):115-20. PubMed ID: 16967777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Technique charts for Kodak EC-L film screen system for portal localization in a 6MV X-ray beam.
    Sandilos P; Antypas C; Paraskevopoulou C; Kouvaris J; Vlachos L
    Technol Health Care; 2006; 14(6):467-72. PubMed ID: 17148858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Efficiency of low-contrast detail detectability in fluoroscopic imaging.
    Tapiovaara MJ
    Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):655-64. PubMed ID: 9167156
    [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. Optimisation strategies introduced for CR at health care centres in Estonia.
    Kepler K; Vladimirov A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):127-31. PubMed ID: 18252852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.