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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17879798)

  • 1. Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors.
    Mackenzie A; Honey ID
    Med Phys; 2007 Aug; 34(8):3345-57. PubMed ID: 17879798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
    Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
    [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. An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems.
    Samei E; Flynn MJ
    Med Phys; 2002 Apr; 29(4):447-59. PubMed ID: 11991117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Image quality evaluation of a desktop computed radiography system.
    Fetterly KA; Hangiandreou NJ
    Med Phys; 2000 Dec; 27(12):2669-79. PubMed ID: 11190949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Validation of an image simulation technique for two computed radiography systems: an application to neonatal imaging.
    Smans K; Vandenbroucke D; Pauwels H; Struelens L; Vanhavere F; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2010 May; 37(5):2092-100. PubMed ID: 20527542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Improved computed radiography image quality from a BaFl:Eu photostimulable phosphor plate.
    Nakano Y; Gido T; Honda S; Maezawa A; Wakamatsu H; Yanagita T
    Med Phys; 2002 Apr; 29(4):592-7. PubMed ID: 11991131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency.
    Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Pattacini P; Ginocchi V; Iori M
    Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2617-27. PubMed ID: 22559632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Nonstationary model of oblique x-ray incidence in amorphous selenium detectors: II. Transfer functions.
    Acciavatti RJ; Maidment ADA
    Med Phys; 2019 Feb; 46(2):505-516. PubMed ID: 30488455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Physical imaging performance of a compact computed radiography acquisition device.
    Kengyelics SM; Launders JH; Cowen AR
    Med Phys; 1998 Mar; 25(3):354-60. PubMed ID: 9547503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The contrast-detail behaviour of a photostimulable phosphor based computed radiography system.
    Marshall NW; Faulkner K; Busch HP; Lehmann KJ
    Phys Med Biol; 1994 Dec; 39(12):2289-303. PubMed ID: 15551554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Guntern D; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2007 Mar; 34(3):906-14. PubMed ID: 17441236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.