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 *

229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16306665)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom.
    Dragusin O; Bosmans H; Pappas C; Desmet W
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(18):4927-40. PubMed ID: 18711249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparing planar image quality of rotating slat and parallel hole collimation: influence of system modeling.
    Van Holen R; Vandenberghe S; Staelens S; Lemahieu I
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Apr; 53(7):1989-2002. PubMed ID: 18356576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and effective dose using four digital systems.
    Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Mackenzie A; Tabakov S; Lewis CA
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):273-7. PubMed ID: 15933121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. VIEWDEX: an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies.
    Håkansson M; Svensson S; Zachrisson S; Svalkvist A; Båth M; Månsson LG
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):42-51. PubMed ID: 20200105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Assessment of three different software systems in the evaluation of dynamic MRI of the breast.
    Kurz KD; Steinhaus D; Klar V; Cohnen M; Wittsack HJ; Saleh A; Mödder U; Blondin D
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Feb; 69(2):300-7. PubMed ID: 18060715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Optimization of image quality and dose for Varian aS500 electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs).
    McGarry CK; Grattan MW; Cosgrove VP
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Dec; 52(23):6865-77. PubMed ID: 18029980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.