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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17517933)

  • 1. Assessment of detective quantum efficiency: intercomparison of a recently introduced international standard with prior methods.
    Ranger NT; Samei E; Dobbins JT; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):785-95. PubMed ID: 17517933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Measurement of the detective quantum efficiency in digital detectors consistent with the IEC 62220-1 standard: practical considerations regarding the choice of filter material.
    Ranger NT; Samei E; Dobbins JT; Ravin CE
    Med Phys; 2005 Jul; 32(7):2305-11. PubMed ID: 16121586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function.
    Samei E; Ranger NT; Dobbins JT; Chen Y
    Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1454-65. PubMed ID: 16752580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Technical Note: Impact on detective quantum efficiency of edge angle determination method by International Electrotechnical Commission methodology for cardiac x-ray image detectors.
    Gislason-Lee AJ; Tunstall CM; Kengyelics SK; Cowen AR; Davies AG
    Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4423-7. PubMed ID: 26233172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparison of edge analysis techniques for the determination of the MTF of digital radiographic systems.
    Samei E; Buhr E; Granfors P; Vandenbroucke D; Wang X
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Aug; 50(15):3613-25. PubMed ID: 16030386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II. Noise power spectrum.
    Dobbins JT; Samei E; Ranger NT; Chen Y
    Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1466-75. PubMed ID: 16752581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Accurate MTF measurement in digital radiography using noise response.
    Kuhls-Gilcrist A; Jain A; Bednarek DR; Hoffmann KR; Rudin S
    Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):724-35. PubMed ID: 20229882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector.
    Zhao W; Ji WG; Debrie A; Rowlands JA
    Med Phys; 2003 Feb; 30(2):254-63. PubMed ID: 12607843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Determination of the modulation transfer function using the edge method: influence of scattered radiation.
    Neitzel U; Buhr E; Hilgers G; Granfors PR
    Med Phys; 2004 Dec; 31(12):3485-91. PubMed ID: 15651631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of a simple method for deriving the presampled modulation transfer function of a digital radiographic system from an edge image.
    Buhr E; Günther-Kohfahl S; Neitzel U
    Med Phys; 2003 Sep; 30(9):2323-31. PubMed ID: 14528954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.