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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17089829)

  • 1. Influence of cassette type on the DQE of CR systems.
    Monnin P; Holzer Z; Wolf R; Neitzel U; Vock P; Gudinchet F; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3637-9. PubMed ID: 17089829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An image quality comparison of standard and dual-side read CR systems for pediatric radiology.
    Monnin P; Holzer Z; Wolf R; Neitzel U; Vock P; Gudinchet F; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):411-20. PubMed ID: 16532949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison between a built-in "dual side" chest imaging device and a standard "single side" CR.
    Riccardi L; Cauzzo MC; Fabbris R; Tonini E; Righetto R
    Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):119-26. PubMed ID: 17278497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Performance evaluation of a "dual-side read" dedicated mammography computed radiography system.
    Fetterly KA; Schueler BA
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1843-54. PubMed ID: 12906203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparison of different computed radiography systems: physical characterization and contrast detail analysis.
    Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Burani A; Acchiappati D
    Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):440-8. PubMed ID: 20229852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Performance evaluation of a computed radiography imaging device using a typical "front side" and novel "dual side" readout storage phosphors.
    Fetterly KA; Schueler BA
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):290-6. PubMed ID: 16532933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. High-resolution imager for digital mammography: physical characterization of a prototype sensor.
    Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Onishi SK
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Sep; 50(17):3957-69. PubMed ID: 16177523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analysis of the kinestatic charge detection system as a high detective quantum efficiency electronic portal imaging device.
    Samant SS; Gopal A
    Med Phys; 2006 Sep; 33(9):3557-67. PubMed ID: 17022252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the imaging properties of an amorphous selenium-based flat panel detector for digital fluoroscopy.
    Hunt DC; Tousignant O; Rowlands JA
    Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):1166-75. PubMed ID: 15191306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Performance of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) used in radiotherapy: image quality and dose measurements.
    Cremers F; Frenzel T; Kausch C; Albers D; Schönborn T; Schmidt R
    Med Phys; 2004 May; 31(5):985-96. PubMed ID: 15191282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
    Boyce SJ; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Determination of the two-dimensional detective quantum efficiency of a computed radiography system.
    Båth M; Håkansson M; Månsson LG
    Med Phys; 2003 Dec; 30(12):3172-82. PubMed ID: 14713084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Study of a prototype high quantum efficiency thick scintillation crystal video-electronic portal imaging device.
    Samant SS; Gopal A
    Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2783-91. PubMed ID: 16964854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Technical characterization of five x-ray detectors for paediatric radiography applications.
    Marshall NW; Smet M; Hofmans M; Pauwels H; De Clercq T; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Nov; 62(24):N573-N586. PubMed ID: 29064378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Generalizing the MTF and DQE to include x-ray scatter and focal spot unsharpness: application to a new microangiographic system.
    Kyprianou IS; Rudin S; Bednarek DR; Hoffmann KR
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):613-26. PubMed ID: 15789608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.