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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20095266)

  • 41. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems: first experiences within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
    Thierens H; Bosmans H; Buls N; Bacher K; De Hauwere A; Jacobs J; Clerinx P
    JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 17696080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Variations in signal-to-noise characteristics of tissue-equivalent attenuators for mammographic automatic exposure control system performance evaluation.
    Morrison CK; Macdonald EB; Bevins NB
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2023 Feb; 24(2):e13870. PubMed ID: 36519622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Current state of practice regarding digital radiography exposure indicators and deviation indices: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 232.
    Dave JK; Jones AK; Fisher R; Hulme K; Rill L; Zamora D; Woodward A; Brady S; MacDougall RD; Goldman L; Lang S; Peck D; Apgar B; Shepard SJ; Uzenoff R; Willis C
    Med Phys; 2018 Nov; 45(11):e1146-e1160. PubMed ID: 30255505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. [Evaluation of the 1Shot Phantom dedicated to the mammography system using FCR].
    Nagashima C; Uchiyama N; Moriyama N; Nagata M; Kobayashi H; Sankoda K; Saotome S; Tagi M; Kusunoki T
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 Jul; 65(7):921-30. PubMed ID: 19661726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Lesion size inaccuracies in digital mammography.
    Paquelet JR; Hendrick RE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Jan; 194(1):W115-8. PubMed ID: 20028882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Digital mammography: quality and dose control.
    Di Maggio C; Gambaccini M; Gennaro G; Baldelli P; Taibi A; Chersevani R; Aimonetto S; Rossetti V; Origgi D; Vigorito S; Contento G; Angelini L; Maggi S
    Radiol Med; 2004; 107(5-6):459-73. PubMed ID: 15195008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Effective detective quantum efficiency for two mammography systems: measurement and comparison against established metrics.
    Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101916. PubMed ID: 24089918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. On the noise variance of a digital mammography system.
    Burgess A
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):1987-95. PubMed ID: 15305451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Quality control phantom for flat panel detector X-ray systems.
    Chida K; Kaga Y; Haga Y; Takeda K; Zuguchi M
    Health Phys; 2013 Jan; 104(1):97-101. PubMed ID: 23192093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Dose reduction through gridless technique in digital full-field mammography].
    Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Berzeg S; Bick U; Fischer T; Hamm B
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):769-74. PubMed ID: 12811688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.