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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16604712)

  • 1. A comparative study of computer assisted assessment of image quality index for mammographic phantom images.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Villaescusa JI; Campayo JM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 116(1-4 Pt 2):620-3. PubMed ID: 16604712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Study of digital mammographic equipments by phantom image quality.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():1994-6. PubMed ID: 17946081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
    Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Myers KJ
    Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Results of radiation protection programmes on mammography.
    Machado N; Carvoeiras P; Teixeira N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 116(1-4 Pt 2):624-6. PubMed ID: 16604713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. A multiparametric automatic method to monitor long-term reproducibility in digital mammography: results from a regional screening programme.
    Gennaro G; Ballaminut A; Contento G
    Eur Radiol; 2017 Sep; 27(9):3776-3787. PubMed ID: 28130611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Automatic evaluation of the image quality of a mammographic phantom.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Villaescusa JI; Campayo JM
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2004 Feb; 73(2):115-28. PubMed ID: 14757255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Validation of a digital mammographic unit model for an objective and highly automated clinical image quality assessment.
    Perez-Ponce H; Daul C; Wolf D; Noel A
    Med Eng Phys; 2013 Aug; 35(8):1089-96; discussion 1089. PubMed ID: 23207102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
    Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
    Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mammographic image restoration using maximum entropy deconvolution.
    Jannetta A; Jackson JC; Kotre CJ; Birch IP; Robson KJ; Padgett R
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Nov; 49(21):4997-5010. PubMed ID: 15584533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diffusion equations with negentropy applied to denoise mammographic images.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Ginestar D; Verdú G; Miró R
    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():4751-4. PubMed ID: 17946261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Assessment of the effects of pixel loss on image quality in direct digital radiography.
    Padgett R; Kotre CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Mar; 49(6):977-86. PubMed ID: 15104320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety].
    Schöfer H; Kotsianos D; Wirth S; Britsch S; Reiser M
    Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
    Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Noise equalization for detection of microcalcification clusters in direct digital mammogram images.
    McLoughlin KJ; Bones PJ; Karssemeijer N
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2004 Mar; 23(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 15027524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimal multidetector row CT parameters for evaluations of the breast: a phantom and specimen study.
    Yi A; Seo BK; Cho PK; Pisano ED; Lee KY; Je BK; Kim HY; Min BW; Son GS
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun; 17(6):744-51. PubMed ID: 20457417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.