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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17826937)

  • 21. Digital radiography image quality evaluation using various phantoms and software.
    Tsalafoutas IA; AlKhazzam S; Tsapaki V; AlNaemi H; Kharita MH
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2022 Dec; 23(12):e13823. PubMed ID: 36345212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Tantalum-specific contrast-to-noise ratio or conventional detector dose-driven exposure control in angiography: radiation dose and image quality evaluation in a porcine model.
    Werncke T; Meine TC; Hinrichs JB; Maschke SK; Becker LS; Brüsch I; Rumpel R; Wacker FK; Meyer BC
    Eur Radiol Exp; 2022 May; 6(1):24. PubMed ID: 35578057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A Phantom Study and a Retrospective Clinical Analysis to Investigate the Impact of a New Image Processing Technology on Radiation Dose and Image Quality during Hepatic Embolization.
    Dave JK; Eschelman DJ; Wasserman JR; Gonsalves CF; Gingold EL
    J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2016 Apr; 27(4):593-600. PubMed ID: 26948994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Increased radiation dose by automatic exposure control system during fluoroscopy and angiography of pelvis due to contrast material in the bladder: experimental study.
    Nakamura A; Ishiguchi T; Kamei S; Matsuda J; Ohno K; Murata K
    Radiat Med; 2004; 22(4):225-32. PubMed ID: 15468942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Automated assessment of low contrast sensitivity for CT systems using a model observer.
    Hernandez-Giron I; Geleijns J; Calzado A; Veldkamp WJ
    Med Phys; 2011 Jul; 38 Suppl 1():S25. PubMed ID: 21978115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Survey of chest radiography systems: Any link between contrast detail measurements and visual grading analysis?
    Rodríguez Pérez S; Marshall NW; Binst J; Coolen J; Struelens L; Bosmans H
    Phys Med; 2020 Aug; 76():62-71. PubMed ID: 32599376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Advanced Robotic Angiography Systems for Image Guidance During Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization: Impact on Radiation Dose and Image Quality.
    Vogl TJ; Alizadeh LS; Maeder R; Naguib NN; Herrmann E; Bickford MW; Burck I; Albrecht MH
    Invest Radiol; 2019 Mar; 54(3):153-159. PubMed ID: 30444795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose.
    Miller DL; Balter S; Cole PE; Lu HT; Schueler BA; Geisinger M; Berenstein A; Albert R; Georgia JD; Noonan PT; Cardella JF; St George J; Russell EJ; Malisch TW; Vogelzang RL; Miller GL; Anderson J;
    J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2003 Jun; 14(6):711-27. PubMed ID: 12817038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Correlation of contrast-detail analysis and clinical image quality assessment in chest radiography with a human cadaver study.
    De Crop A; Bacher K; Van Hoof T; Smeets PV; Smet BS; Vergauwen M; Kiendys U; Duyck P; Verstraete K; D'Herde K; Thierens H
    Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):298-304. PubMed ID: 22056687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Importance of dose settings in the x-ray systems used for interventional radiology: a national survey.
    Vano E; Sanchez R; Fernandez JM; Rosales F; Garcia MA; Sotil J; Hernandez J; Carrera F; Ciudad J; Soler MM; Ballester T
    Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol; 2009 Jan; 32(1):121-6. PubMed ID: 19052816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Information Loss Via Visual Assessment of Radiologic Images Using Modified Version of the Low-Contrast Detailed Phantom at Direct DR System.
    Geso M; Alghamdi SS; Shanahan M; Alghamdi S; Mineo R; Aldhafery B
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2017 Jun; 48(2):137-143. PubMed ID: 31047361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Impact of the X-ray system setting on patient dose and image quality; a case study with two interventional cardiology systems.
    Vassileva J; Vano E; Ubeda C; Rehani M; Zotova R
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jul; 155(3):329-34. PubMed ID: 23396881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
    Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
    Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Does digital flat detector technology tip the scale towards better image quality or reduced patient dose in interventional cardiology?
    Bogaert E; Bacher K; Lapere R; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Nov; 72(2):348-53. PubMed ID: 18789622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom.
    Dragusin O; Bosmans H; Pappas C; Desmet W
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(18):4927-40. PubMed ID: 18711249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Toward standardized quantitative image quality (IQ) assessment in computed tomography (CT): A comprehensive framework for automated and comparative IQ analysis based on ICRU Report 87.
    Pahn G; Skornitzke S; Schlemmer HP; Kauczor HU; Stiller W
    Phys Med; 2016 Jan; 32(1):104-15. PubMed ID: 26520485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Quality assurance in ultrasound screening for hepatocellular carcinoma using a standardized phantom and standard clinical images: a 3-year national investigation in Korea.
    Choi JI; Jung SE; Kim PN; Cha SH; Jun JK; Lee HY; Park EC
    J Ultrasound Med; 2014 Jun; 33(6):985-95. PubMed ID: 24866605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A single phantom, a single statistical method for low-contrast detectability assessment.
    Paruccini N; Villa R; Oberhofer N; Loria A; Signoriello M; Giordano C; Soavi R; Colombo P; De Mattia C; Rottoli F; Nici S; Origgi D; Emiro F; D'Ercole L; Mantovani L; Cavallari M; Quattrocchi M; Pietrobon F; Bregant P; Riccardi L; Radice A; Luraschi F; Milan L; Nocera P; Strocchi S; Pierotti L; Taddeucci A; Guerra G; Felisi M; Riga S; Trianni A
    Phys Med; 2021 Nov; 91():28-42. PubMed ID: 34710789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging.
    Gislason AJ; Davies AG; Cowen AR
    Med Phys; 2010 Oct; 37(10):5258-69. PubMed ID: 21089760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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