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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16279063)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Changes realized from extended bit-depth and metal artifact reduction in CT.
    Glide-Hurst C; Chen D; Zhong H; Chetty IJ
    Med Phys; 2013 Jun; 40(6):061711. PubMed ID: 23718590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Workflow assessment of digital versus computed radiography and screen-film in the outpatient environment.
    Andriole KP; Luth DM; Gould RG
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():124-6. PubMed ID: 12105711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Measurement of focal spot size with slit camera using computed radiography and flat-panel based digital detectors.
    Rong XJ; Krugh KT; Shepard SJ; Geiser WR
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1768-75. PubMed ID: 12906194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography.
    Aldrich JE; Duran E; Dunlop P; Mayo JR
    J Digit Imaging; 2006 Jun; 19(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 16511674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. A-Si:H/CsI(Tl) flat-panel versus computed radiography for chest imaging applications: image quality metrics measurement.
    Liu X; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2004 Jan; 31(1):98-110. PubMed ID: 14761026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography.
    Brettle DS; Ward SC; Parkin GJ; Cowen AR; Sumsion HJ
    Br J Radiol; 1994 May; 67(797):464-8. PubMed ID: 8193893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Interstitial lung disease: impact of postprocessing in digital storage phosphor imaging.
    Schaefer CM; Greene R; Llewellyn HJ; Mrose HE; Pile-Spellman EA; Rubens JR; Lindemann SR
    Radiology; 1991 Mar; 178(3):733-8. PubMed ID: 1994410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Lubberts effect in columnar phosphors.
    Badano A; Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Jennings RJ; Boswell JS; Myers KJ
    Med Phys; 2004 Nov; 31(11):3122-31. PubMed ID: 15587665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. [New analog and digital imaging techniques for chest diagnosis--principles--clinical value--economics].
    Busch HP; Lehmann KJ; Georgi M
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1993 Jan; 3(1):6-13. PubMed ID: 8448232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography.
    Dobbins JT; Rice JJ; Beam CA; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 1992 Apr; 183(1):179-87. PubMed ID: 1549669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [The physical aspects of traditional radiology and of computed radiology compared].
    Bacarini L; Giacomich R; Saccavini C
    Radiol Med; 1995 Apr; 89(4):506-19. PubMed ID: 7597234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Physical performance measures of radiographic imaging systems.
    Workman A; Brettle DS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):139-46. PubMed ID: 9442599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
    Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [Investigation of low-contrast signal detection in computed radiography (CR)].
    Higashida Y; Matsumoto M; Yoshioka S; Takahashi M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1989 Nov; 49(11):1411-9. PubMed ID: 2602104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [An economic comparison between digital luminescence radiography and conventional film processing in intensive care medicine].
    Peters PE; Dykstra DE; Wiesmann W; Schlüchtermann J; Adam D
    Radiologe; 1992 Nov; 32(11):536-40. PubMed ID: 1461981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. [New imaging methods in thoracic diagnosis. A study to evaluate digital storage screen radiography, the slit technique ("AMBER"), asymmetric ("InSight") and conventional film-screen techniques].
    Lehmann KJ; Busch HP; Drescher P; Loose R; Georgi M
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1993 Jan; 3(1):14-9. PubMed ID: 8448224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film, computed, and CT scanned projection radiography: applications to CT urography.
    McCollough CH; Bruesewitz MR; Vrtiska TJ; King BF; LeRoy AJ; Quam JP; Hattery RR
    Radiology; 2001 Nov; 221(2):395-403. PubMed ID: 11687682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. [Physical imaging properties of a flat panel X-ray detector system].
    Yoshida A; Nakamura S; Nishihara S; Kohama C; Takahata A; Fujikawa K
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(4):246-54. PubMed ID: 12766270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.