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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22232780)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. Optimization of x-ray spectra in digital mammography through Monte Carlo simulations.
    Cunha DM; Tomal A; Poletti ME
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1919-35. PubMed ID: 22421418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. Should processed or raw image data be used in mammographic image quality analyses? A comparative study of three full-field digital mammography systems.
    Borg M; Badr I; Royle G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jan; 163(1):102-17. PubMed ID: 24692583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
    Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
    Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography.
    Urbanczyk H; McDonagh E; Marshall NW; Castellano I
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1987-2003. PubMed ID: 22429938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 15. [Recommendations for a QA program for digital mammography].
    Noel A; Stines J; Heid P; Lisbona A; Verdun FR; Barreau B; Caselles O; Hagay C; Isnard A; Levy L; Marelle P; Séradour B; Tardivon A; Thibaut F; Tournemaine N; Valentin F;
    J Radiol; 2003 Jun; 84(6):723-9. PubMed ID: 12910183
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography.
    Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Yaffe M; Alm Carlsson G
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jul; 50(13):3143-52. PubMed ID: 15972986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
    Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
    Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical image quality criteria for full field digital mammography: a first practical application.
    Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Geniets C; Dekeyzer F; Bosmans H; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):265-70. PubMed ID: 18319279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
    Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.