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 *

93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16872078)

  • 1. Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography.
    Borasi G; Samei E; Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Tassoni D
    Med Phys; 2006 Jun; 33(6):1707-19. PubMed ID: 16872078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems.
    Samei E; Flynn MJ
    Med Phys; 2003 Apr; 30(4):608-22. PubMed ID: 12722813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies.
    Fischbach F; Ricke J; Freund T; Werk M; Spors B; Baumann C; Pech MJ; Felix R
    Invest Radiol; 2002 Nov; 37(11):609-14. PubMed ID: 12393973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of low-contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images.
    Peer S; Neitzel U; Giacomuzzi SM; Peer R; Gassner E; Steingruber I; Jaschke W
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Mar; 20(3):239-42. PubMed ID: 11341713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography.
    Borasi G; Nitrosi A; Ferrari P; Tassoni D
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1719-31. PubMed ID: 12906189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
    Chotas HG; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
    Segui JA; Zhao W
    Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Image quality evaluation of flat panel and image intensifier digital magnification in x-ray fluoroscopy.
    Srinivas Y; Wilson DL
    Med Phys; 2002 Jul; 29(7):1611-21. PubMed ID: 12148744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Image quality and detection performance of a direct digital radiography system].
    Ideguchi T; Matsuda K; Himuro K; Kuwahara R; Miyazaki H; Hazeyama H; Kumazawa S; Kawaji Y; Yoshida A; Matsumoto M; Higashida Y
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2006 Mar; 62(3):425-33. PubMed ID: 16604048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics.
    Cowen AR; Kengyelics SM; Davies AG
    Clin Radiol; 2008 May; 63(5):487-98. PubMed ID: 18374710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
    Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Image quality and exposure dose in digital projection radiography].
    Busch HP; Busch S; Decker C; Schilz C
    Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 12525978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Optimization of detector pixel size for stent visualization in x-ray fluoroscopy.
    Jiang Y; Wilson DL
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):668-78. PubMed ID: 16878570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Quantitative image quality evaluation of pixel-binning in a flat-panel detector for x-ray fluoroscopy.
    Srinivas Y; Wilson DL
    Med Phys; 2004 Jan; 31(1):131-41. PubMed ID: 14761029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Image quality in two phosphor-based flat panel digital radiographic detectors.
    Samei E
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1747-57. PubMed ID: 12906192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.
    Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
    Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality control phantom for flat panel detector X-ray systems.
    Chida K; Kaga Y; Haga Y; Takeda K; Zuguchi M
    Health Phys; 2013 Jan; 104(1):97-101. PubMed ID: 23192093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Flat-panel detectors in X-ray systems].
    Spahn M; Heer V; Freytag R
    Radiologe; 2003 May; 43(5):340-50. PubMed ID: 12764582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.