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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16632624)

  • 21. Image quality assessment and radiation doses in intraoral radiography.
    Yakoumakis EN; Tierris CE; Stefanou EP; Phanourakis IG; Proukakis CC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):362-8. PubMed ID: 11250637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Problems with film processing in medical X-ray imaging in Lithuania.
    Sniureviciute M; Adliene D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):260-3. PubMed ID: 15933118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Processor quality control in laser imaging systems.
    Bogucki TM; Murphy WR; Baker CW; Piazza SS; Haus AG
    Med Phys; 1997 Apr; 24(4):581-4. PubMed ID: 9127311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Image quality of dry-processed film.
    Okabe T; Nakamura K; Asano T
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2001 Jul; 66(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 11378226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Sensitometric responses of selected medical radiographic films.
    Kofler JM; Gray JE
    Radiology; 1991 Dec; 181(3):879-83. PubMed ID: 1947114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Test report on the system components for film processing by the middle-format technology].
    Furnell EC; Pohlenz O
    Rontgenblatter; 1985 Dec; 38(12):392-6. PubMed ID: 4089483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Reproduction of radiologic images on plain paper.
    Ibbott GS; Zhang Y; Mohiuddin M; Adams E
    Radiographics; 1998; 18(3):755-60. PubMed ID: 9599396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. [Assuring image quality in roentgen diagnostic services--information on DIN 6868. Part 2. Film processing: evaluating the uniformity of visual optic density].
    Becker-Gaab C; Borcke E; Bunde E; Hagemann G; Kütterer G; Lang GR; Schöfer H; Stender HS; Stieve FE; von Volkmann T
    Rontgenpraxis; 1987 Feb; 40(2):43-50. PubMed ID: 3576371
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison and variations of the speed of radiographic film.
    Daniels C; Holloway AF
    Radiology; 1983 Jan; 146(1):203-7. PubMed ID: 6849046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Digital X-ray mammography: comparison of the image quality achievable with a wet laser imager, a dry infrared laser imager and a dry laser imager using direct thermography].
    Krug B; Stützer H; Zähringer M; Morgenroth C; Winnekendonk G; Gossmann A; Warm M; Lackner K
    Rofo; 2005 Jul; 177(7):955-61. PubMed ID: 15973597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Checking the consistency of sensitometers and film processors in a mammographic screening programme.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Feb; 69(818):143-7. PubMed ID: 8785642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Image quality and optical density in mammography: study on phantoms].
    Stinés J; Noël A; Estivalet S; Troufléau P; Netter E; Quinquis J
    J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 79(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 9757259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Compatibility characteristics of five radiographic films utilised in Brazilian diagnostic radiology.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; de Almeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Sep; 156(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 23651656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effect of poor control of film processors on mammographic image quality.
    Kimme-Smith C; Sun H; Bassett LW; Gold RH
    Radiographics; 1992 Nov; 12(6):1137-46. PubMed ID: 1439016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Factors affecting color strength of printing on film-coated tablets by UV laser irradiation: TiO2 particle size, crystal structure, or concentration in the film, and the irradiated UV laser power.
    Hosokawa A; Kato Y
    Drug Dev Ind Pharm; 2011 Aug; 37(8):901-6. PubMed ID: 21405941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The selection of films and intensifying screens for use as a two-dimensional detector in a computed tomography system.
    Truscott JG; Westmacott CF; Bentley HB; Horsman A
    Radiogr Today; 1988 Nov; 54(618):31-4. PubMed ID: 3269738
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. How to measure CT image quality: variations in CT-numbers, uniformity and low contrast resolution for a CT quality assurance phantom.
    Gulliksrud K; Stokke C; Martinsen AC
    Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):521-6. PubMed ID: 24530005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Quantitative investigation of the effects of the scanning parameters in the digitization of EBT and EBT2 Gafchromic film dosimetry with flatbed scanners.
    Hu Y; Ahmad S; Ali I
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2012; 20(4):385-93. PubMed ID: 23324780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Fundamental study on stability of dry-processing imager system DRYPRO 722/SD-P].
    Sonobe F; Toyooka K; Abe S; Tanaka T; Naka E; Fujisaki T; Nishimura K; Saitoh H; Mochizuki Y
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(3):173-82. PubMed ID: 12766281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A survey of the state of mammography practice in Bulgaria.
    Avramova-Cholakova S; Vassileva J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):184-6. PubMed ID: 21831863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.