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)

  • 21. Physical characterization of a high-resolution CCD detector for mammography.
    Elbakri IA; Tesic MM; Xiong Q
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Apr; 52(8):2171-83. PubMed ID: 17404462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Obstacles remain on road to digital mammography.
    Johnson M
    Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1999 Nov; Suppl Digital():D19-21. PubMed ID: 10724731
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A method to incorporate the effect of beam quality on image noise in a digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) based computer simulation for optimisation of digital radiography.
    Moore CS; Wood TJ; Saunderson JR; Beavis AW
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Sep; 62(18):7379-7393. PubMed ID: 28742062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Digital mammography image quality: image display.
    Siegel E; Krupinski E; Samei E; Flynn M; Andriole K; Erickson B; Thomas J; Badano A; Seibert JA; Pisano ED
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27. PubMed ID: 17412136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 May; 54(9):2845-61. PubMed ID: 19384004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.
    Feig SA; Yaffe MJ
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1205-30. PubMed ID: 7480666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.
    Mackenzie A; Warren LM; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM; Cooke J; Dance DR; Chakraborty DP; Halling-Brown MD; Looney PT; Young KC
    Phys Med; 2016 Apr; 32(4):568-74. PubMed ID: 27061872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
    Zdesar U
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Complex evaluation of film mammography imaging systems. I. Methodological principles].
    Friedrich M; Weskamp P
    Rofo; 1984 May; 140(5):585-96. PubMed ID: 6429765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography.
    Fausto AM; Lopes MC; de Sousa MC; Furquim TA; Mol AW; Velasco FG
    J Digit Imaging; 2017 Apr; 30(2):185-196. PubMed ID: 27896452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Image quality in digital mammography: image acquisition.
    Williams MB; Yaffe MJ; Maidment AD; Martin MC; Seibert JA; Pisano ED
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug; 3(8):589-608. PubMed ID: 17412134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Optimization of the exposure parameters in digital mammography for diverse glandularities using the contrast-detail metric.
    Martí Villarreal OA; Velasco FG; Fausto AMF; Milian FM; Mol AW; Capizzi KR; Ambrosio P
    Phys Med; 2022 Sep; 101():112-119. PubMed ID: 35988481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Storage, transmission, and retrieval of digital mammography, including recommendations on image compression.
    Avrin D; Morin R; Piraino D; Rowberg A; Detorie N; Zuley M; Seibert JA; Pisano ED
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug; 3(8):609-14. PubMed ID: 17412135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [Image quality and optical density in mammography: study on phantoms].
    Stinés J; Noël A; Estivalet S; Troufléau P; Netter E; Quinquis J
    J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 79(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 9757259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Digital mammography: performance evaluation parameters and available systems in France].
    Stines J; Noel A; Heid P
    J Radiol; 2007; 88(7-8 Pt 1):933-42. PubMed ID: 17878849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Dual-energy, standard and low-kVp contrast-enhanced CT-cholangiography: a comparative analysis of image quality and radiation exposure.
    Stiller W; Schwarzwaelder CB; Sommer CM; Veloza S; Radeleff BA; Kauczor HU
    Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jul; 81(7):1405-12. PubMed ID: 21458939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Trial of a proposed protocol for constancy control of digital mammography systems.
    Pedersen K; Landmark ID
    Med Phys; 2009 Dec; 36(12):5537-46. PubMed ID: 20095266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.