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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19162682)

  • 1. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Study of digital mammographic equipments by phantom image quality.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():1994-6. PubMed ID: 17946081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparative study of computer assisted assessment of image quality index for mammographic phantom images.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Villaescusa JI; Campayo JM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 116(1-4 Pt 2):620-3. PubMed ID: 16604712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
    Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Myers KJ
    Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
    Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
    Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety].
    Schöfer H; Kotsianos D; Wirth S; Britsch S; Reiser M
    Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Automatic evaluation of the image quality of a mammographic phantom.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Villaescusa JI; Campayo JM
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2004 Feb; 73(2):115-28. PubMed ID: 14757255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography.
    Figl M; Semturs F; Kaar M; Hoffmann R; Kaldarar H; Homolka P; Mostbeck G; Scholz B; Hummel J
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Jan; 58(2):N13-23. PubMed ID: 23257608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme.
    Monnin P; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Implementing digital quality control in a breast center.
    Parikh J; Fanus D
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Nov; 1(11):854-60. PubMed ID: 17411717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images.
    Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ; Lawton DT
    Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):709-23. PubMed ID: 9167162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Results of radiation protection programmes on mammography.
    Machado N; Carvoeiras P; Teixeira N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 116(1-4 Pt 2):624-6. PubMed ID: 16604713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
    Bor D; Akdur K
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
    Sommer A; Schopphoven S; Land I; Blaser D; Sobczak T;
    Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
    Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
    Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A multiparametric automatic method to monitor long-term reproducibility in digital mammography: results from a regional screening programme.
    Gennaro G; Ballaminut A; Contento G
    Eur Radiol; 2017 Sep; 27(9):3776-3787. PubMed ID: 28130611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Rogge F; Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Nijs K; Van Steen A; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):120-30. PubMed ID: 16461531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.