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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22687901)

  • 21. [Direct digital magnification mammography with a large-surface detector made of amorphous silicon].
    Hermann KP; Hundertmark C; Funke M; von Brenndorff A; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1999 May; 170(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 10370416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Short communication: anomalous image quality phantom scores in magnification mammography: evidence of phase contrast enhancement.
    Kotre CJ; Birch IP; Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 2002 Feb; 75(890):170-3. PubMed ID: 11893641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Analysis of signal propagation in optically coupled detectors for digital mammography: I. Phosphor screens.
    Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ
    Phys Med Biol; 1995 May; 40(5):877-89. PubMed ID: 7652013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Observations of deterioration of photo-stimulable phosphor plates used in digital mammography and its effects on mammography diagnoses].
    Yasuda M; Kato K; Kurosawa S; Yoshikawa K; Sato H; Takahashi T; Iwai T; Watanabe H; Nakazawa Y
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2013 Apr; 69(4):393-9. PubMed ID: 23609861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Performance characteristics of a Kodak computed radiography system.
    Bradford CD; Peppler WW; Dobbins JT
    Med Phys; 1999 Jan; 26(1):27-37. PubMed ID: 9949395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Some characteristics of solid-state and photo-stimulable phosphor detectors for intra-oral radiography.
    Borg E
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1999; 139():i-viii, 1-67. PubMed ID: 10635104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Application of phase contrast imaging to mammography].
    Tohyama K; Katafuchi T; Matsuo S; Morishita J; Yamada K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2005 Feb; 61(2):245-52. PubMed ID: 15753865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters.
    Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Relationship between radiation dose reduction and image quality change in photostimulable phosphor luminescence X-ray imaging systems.
    Sakurai T; Kawamata R; Kozai Y; Kaku Y; Nakamura K; Saito M; Wakao H; Kashima I
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 May; 39(4):207-15. PubMed ID: 20395461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Chest radiography: ROC phantom study of four different digital systems and one conventional radiographic system].
    Redlich U; Reissberg S; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Scherlach C; Döhring W
    Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 12525979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Image quality in two phosphor-based flat panel digital radiographic detectors.
    Samei E
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1747-57. PubMed ID: 12906192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Evaluation of image quality in portal imaging using a combination of a storage phosphor plate and diagnostic cassette.
    Fujita H; Yamaguchi M; Fujioka T; Fukuda H; Murase K
    Br J Radiol; 2009 Jun; 82(978):504-8. PubMed ID: 19153183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Improved computed radiography image quality from a BaFl:Eu photostimulable phosphor plate.
    Nakano Y; Gido T; Honda S; Maezawa A; Wakamatsu H; Yanagita T
    Med Phys; 2002 Apr; 29(4):592-7. PubMed ID: 11991131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems.
    Marshall NW; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(22):7629-50. PubMed ID: 23123601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device.
    Samei E; Flynn MJ; Reimann DA
    Med Phys; 1998 Jan; 25(1):102-13. PubMed ID: 9472832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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