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)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Objective criteria for acceptability and constancy tests of digital subtraction angiography.
    de las Heras H; Torres R; Fernández-Soto JM; Vañó E
    Phys Med; 2016 Jan; 32(1):272-6. PubMed ID: 26522881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Evaluation of three-dimensional iterative image reconstruction in C-arm-based interventional cone-beam CT: A phantom study in comparison with customary reconstruction technique.
    Suzuki S; Katada Y; Takayanagi T; Sugawara H; Ishikawa T; Yamamoto Y; Wada H
    Medicine (Baltimore); 2019 Mar; 98(13):e14947. PubMed ID: 30921193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography.
    Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; England A
    Br J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 91(1089):20180317. PubMed ID: 29906239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography.
    Steiding C; Kolditz D; Kalender WA
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031901. PubMed ID: 24593719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Image quality and absorbed dose comparison of single- and dual-source cone-beam computed tomography.
    Miura H; Ozawa S; Okazue T; Kawakubo A; Yamada K; Nagata Y
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 May; 19(3):360-366. PubMed ID: 29667294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality for Angiographic System with Spectral Shaping Filter].
    Ichikawa N; Matsubara K; Fukuda A
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2019; 75(1):13-23. PubMed ID: 30662028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Application of newly developed Fluoro-QC software for image quality evaluation in cardiac X-ray systems.
    Oliveira M; Lopez G; Geambastiani P; Ubeda C
    Radiography (Lond); 2018 May; 24(2):e44-e47. PubMed ID: 29605124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Dose reduction during CT fluoroscopy: phantom study of angular beam modulation.
    Hohl C; Suess C; Wildberger JE; Honnef D; Das M; Mühlenbruch G; Schaller A; Günther RW; Mahnken AH
    Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):519-25. PubMed ID: 18227544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Evaluation of a no-reference image quality metric for projection X-ray imaging using a 3D printed patient-specific phantom.
    Buytaert D; Taeymans Y; De Wolf D; Bacher K
    Phys Med; 2021 Sep; 89():29-40. PubMed ID: 34343764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Preliminary results of DSA denoising based on a weighted low-rank approach using an advanced neurovascular replication system.
    Hariharan SG; Kaethner C; Strobel N; Kowarschik M; DiNitto J; Albarqouni S; Fahrig R; Navab N
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2019 Jul; 14(7):1117-1126. PubMed ID: 30977093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
    Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Radiographers' Ability to Detect Low-Contrast Detail in Digital Radiography Systems.
    Alsleem H; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2015; 87(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 26377266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Physician-received scatter radiation with angiography systems used for interventional radiology: comparison among many X-ray systems.
    Chida K; Morishima Y; Inaba Y; Taura M; Ebata A; Takeda K; Shimura H; Zuguchi M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 May; 149(4):410-6. PubMed ID: 22117021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Evaluation of automatic image quality assessment in chest CT - A human cadaver study.
    Franck C; De Crop A; De Roo B; Smeets P; Vergauwen M; Dewaele T; Van Borsel M; Achten E; Van Hoof T; Bacher K
    Phys Med; 2017 Apr; 36():32-37. PubMed ID: 28410683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Using the ACR CT accreditation phantom for routine image quality assurance on both CT and CBCT imaging systems in a radiotherapy environment.
    Hobson MA; Soisson ET; Davis SD; Parker W
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2014 Jul; 15(4):4835. PubMed ID: 25207412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The influence of a novel edge enhancement software on image quality of DR hand images of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
    Outzen CB; Maron D; Nissen J; Munk J; Grau LM; Juhl D; Precht H
    Radiography (Lond); 2021 Aug; 27(3):877-882. PubMed ID: 33676836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Machine learning framework for automatic image quality evaluation involving a mammographic American College of Radiology phantom.
    Ho PS; Hwang YS; Tsai HY
    Phys Med; 2022 Oct; 102():1-8. PubMed ID: 36030664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. [Reduction of Operator Exposure Radiation Dose and Evaluation of Image Quality Using Half Scan in CT Fluoroscopy].
    Kinoshita E; Miyazaki H; Ogawa K; Komiya I; Kato T
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2020; 76(12):1266-1275. PubMed ID: 33342945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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