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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22842639)

  • 41. Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: a comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems.
    Sun Z; Lin C; Tyan Y; Ng KH
    Clin Imaging; 2012; 36(4):279-86. PubMed ID: 22726965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after application of various image processing algorithms.
    Alpöz E; Soğur E; Baksi Akdeniz BG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):490-4. PubMed ID: 18033946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Evaluation of automatic exposure control in a direct digital intraoral system.
    Benchimol D; Näsström K; Shi X
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Sep; 38(6):407-12. PubMed ID: 19700535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Effect of image sharpening on radiographic image quality.
    Clark JL; Wadhwani CP; Abramovitch K; Rice DD; Kattadiyil MT
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):927-933. PubMed ID: 30166247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Panoramic radiography: digital technology fosters efficiency.
    Benson BW; Liang H; Flint DJ
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2011; 32 Spec No 4():6-8. PubMed ID: 22195340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
    Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Experimental and theoretical x-ray imaging performance comparison of iodine and lanthanide contrast agents.
    Cardinal HN; Holdsworth DW; Drangova M; Hobbs BB; Fenster A
    Med Phys; 1993; 20(1):15-31. PubMed ID: 8455493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Reproducibility of pixel values for two photostimulable phosphor plates in consecutive standardized scannings.
    Freitas P; Yaedú RY; Rubira-Bullen IR; Escarpinati M; Vieira MC; Schiabel H; Lauris JR
    Braz Oral Res; 2006; 20(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 17119702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Determination of the optimal conditions for dental subtraction radiography using a storage phosphor system.
    Brettle DS; Ellwood R; Davies R
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Jan; 28(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 10202471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. An improved method for flat-field correction of flat panel x-ray detector.
    Kwan AL; Seibert JA; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):391-3. PubMed ID: 16532945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Optimization of exposure in panoramic radiography while maintaining image quality using adaptive filtering.
    Svenson B; Larsson L; Båth M
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2016; 74(3):229-35. PubMed ID: 26478956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Evaluation of three contrast correction methods for digital subtraction in dental radiography: an in vitro study.
    Likar B; Pernus F
    Med Phys; 1997 Feb; 24(2):299-307. PubMed ID: 9048371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Optimisation of radiological protocols for chest imaging using computed radiography and flat-panel X-ray detectors.
    Compagnone G; Casadio Baleni M; Di Nicola E; Valentino M; Benati M; Calzolaio LF; Oberhofer N; Fabbri E; Domenichelli S; Barozzi L
    Radiol Med; 2013 Jun; 118(4):540-54. PubMed ID: 23090253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Patient dose in digital mammography.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.
    Ranger NT; Lo JY; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):962-9. PubMed ID: 20384232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Evaluating radiographic parameters for mobile chest computed radiography: phantoms, image quality and effective dose.
    Rill LN; Brateman L; Arreola M
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2727-35. PubMed ID: 14596311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Dental digital radiography.
    Moore WS
    Tex Dent J; 2002 May; 119(5):404-12. PubMed ID: 12046403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems.
    Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 9927091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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