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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20821170)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Computed radiography as a gamma ray detector--dose response and applications.
    O'Keeffe DS; McLeod RW
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Aug; 49(16):3559-72. PubMed ID: 15446787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Compatibility characteristics of five radiographic films utilised in Brazilian diagnostic radiology.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; de Almeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Sep; 156(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 23651656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
    Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Optimal beam quality for chest computed radiography.
    Oda N; Nakata H; Murakami S; Terada K; Nakamura K; Yoshida A
    Invest Radiol; 1996 Mar; 31(3):126-31. PubMed ID: 8675419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics.
    Cowen AR; Davies AG; Kengyelics SM
    Clin Radiol; 2007 Dec; 62(12):1132-41. PubMed ID: 17981160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Reduction of absorbed dose in storage phosphor urography by significant lowering of tube voltage and adjustment of image display parameters.
    Wiltz HJ; Petersen U; Axelsson B
    Acta Radiol; 2005 Jul; 46(4):391-5. PubMed ID: 16134316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging.
    De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Smeets P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):174-7. PubMed ID: 16461499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of chest and abdominal exposure dose appropriate for a digital image reader system incorporating a columnar-crystal structured phosphor plate and a contrast-detail phantom.
    Saito K; Hiramoto S; Gomi T; Muramoto N; Seki M; Tsukimura K; Suzuki H
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2008 Jul; 1(2):238-43. PubMed ID: 20821154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages.
    Sandborg M; Tingberg A; Ullman G; Dance DR; Alm Carlsson G
    Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4169-75. PubMed ID: 17153395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure.
    Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):68-74. PubMed ID: 17403882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of testing of collimator and beam alignment, focal spot size with slit camera, and tube current consistency using computed radiography and conventional screen-film systems.
    Meechai T; Chousangsuntorn K; Owasirikul W; Mongkolsuk M; Iampa W
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2019 Jun; 20(6):160-169. PubMed ID: 31095873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Measurement of focal spot size with slit camera using computed radiography and flat-panel based digital detectors.
    Rong XJ; Krugh KT; Shepard SJ; Geiser WR
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1768-75. PubMed ID: 12906194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Performance comparison of an active matrix flat panel imager, computed radiography system, and a screen-film system at four standard radiation qualities.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):343-50. PubMed ID: 15789578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography.
    Gkanatsios NA; Huda W; Peters KR
    Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1643-50. PubMed ID: 12201409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluation of a computed radiography system for megavoltage photon beam dosimetry.
    Olch AJ
    Med Phys; 2005 Sep; 32(9):2987-99. PubMed ID: 16266113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Optimizing image quality and dose for digital radiography of distal pediatric extremities using the contrast-to-noise ratio.
    Hess R; Neitzel U
    Rofo; 2012 Jul; 184(7):643-9. PubMed ID: 22618480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Filter materials for dose reduction in screen-film radiography.
    Koedooder K; Venema HW
    Phys Med Biol; 1986 Jun; 31(6):585-600. PubMed ID: 3755830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.