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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19847017)

  • 1. An alternative method for noise analysis using pixel variance as part of quality control procedures on digital mammography systems.
    Bouwman R; Young K; Lazzari B; Ravaglia V; Broeders M; van Engen R
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Nov; 54(22):6809-22. PubMed ID: 19847017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Artifacts in digital mammography.
    Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
    Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The current status of full-field digital mammography quality control.
    Williams MB; Goodale PJ; Butler PF
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Dec; 1(12):936-51. PubMed ID: 17411736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quality assurance of computed and digital radiography systems.
    Walsh C; Gorman D; Byrne P; Larkin A; Dowling A; Malone JF
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):271-5. PubMed ID: 18319281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
    Muhogora WE; Devetti A; Padovani R; Msaki P; Bonutti F
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Determining air kerma from pixel values in digital mammography.
    Toroi P; Nieminen MT; Tenkanen-Rautakoski P; Varjonen M
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jun; 54(12):3865-79. PubMed ID: 19491454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Experience with the European quality assurance guidelines for digital mammography systems in a national screening programme.
    McCullagh J; Keavey E; Egan G; Phelan N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb; 153(2):223-6. PubMed ID: 23173219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2014 Oct; 59(19):5741-61. PubMed ID: 25198143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose.
    Ng KH; Jamal N; DeWerd L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006; 121(4):445-51. PubMed ID: 16709704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The use of a figure-of-merit (FOM) for optimisation in digital mammography: a literature review.
    Borg M; Badr I; Royle GJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 22232780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: part II. Noise power spectra and signal to noise.
    Boedeker KL; McNitt-Gray MF
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jul; 52(14):4047-61. PubMed ID: 17664594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Confrontation of mammography systems in flanders with the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in mammography screening. Analysis of initial results.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Deprez T; Rogge F; Van Steen A; Van Limbergen E; Marchal G
    JBR-BTR; 1999 Dec; 82(6):288-93. PubMed ID: 10670170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.