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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2404131)

  • 1. Evaluation of image quality of ultrasound scanners in medical diagnostics.
    Alasaarela E; Koivukangas J
    J Ultrasound Med; 1990 Jan; 9(1):23-34. PubMed ID: 2404131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Performance evaluation of an 85-cm-bore X-ray computed tomography scanner designed for radiation oncology and comparison with current diagnostic CT scanners.
    Garcia-Ramirez JL; Mutic S; Dempsey JF; Low DA; Purdy JA
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2002 Mar; 52(4):1123-31. PubMed ID: 11958910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality assurance in ultrasound screening for hepatocellular carcinoma using a standardized phantom and standard clinical images: a 3-year national investigation in Korea.
    Choi JI; Jung SE; Kim PN; Cha SH; Jun JK; Lee HY; Park EC
    J Ultrasound Med; 2014 Jun; 33(6):985-95. PubMed ID: 24866605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparative evaluation of ultrasound scanner accuracy in distance measurement.
    Branca FP; Sciuto SA; Scorza A
    Rev Sci Instrum; 2012 Oct; 83(10):105103. PubMed ID: 23126800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Implementation and validation of three automated methods for measuring ultrasound maximum depth of penetration: application to ultrasound quality control.
    Gorny KR; Tradup DJ; Hangiandreou NJ
    Med Phys; 2005 Aug; 32(8):2615-28. PubMed ID: 16193792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Development of a Low-Cost Medical Ultrasound Scanner Using a Monostatic Synthetic Aperture.
    van den Heuvel TLA; Graham DJ; Smith KJ; de Korte CL; Neasham JA
    IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst; 2017 Aug; 11(4):849-857. PubMed ID: 28715339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Synthetic aperture ultrasound imaging with a ring transducer array: preliminary ex vivo results.
    Qu X; Azuma T; Yogi T; Azuma S; Takeuchi H; Tamano S; Takagi S
    J Med Ultrason (2001); 2016 Oct; 43(4):461-71. PubMed ID: 27300653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment.
    Thijssen JM; Weijers G; de Korte CL
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 33(3):460-71. PubMed ID: 17275983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Visualization of B-scan transducer transverse cross-sectional beam patterns.
    Goldstein A; Parks JA; Osborne B
    J Ultrasound Med; 1982; 1(1):23-35. PubMed ID: 6152921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A 120-MHz ultrasound probe for tissue imaging.
    Yokosawa K; Shinomura R; Sano S; Ito Y; Ishikawa S; Sato Y
    Ultrason Imaging; 1996 Oct; 18(4):231-9. PubMed ID: 9101645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of a low-cost liquid ultrasound test object for detection of transducer artefacts.
    King DM; Hangiandreou NJ; Tradup DJ; Stekel SF
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Dec; 55(23):N557-70. PubMed ID: 21081828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluations of UltraiQ software for objective ultrasound image quality assessment using images from a commercial scanner.
    Long Z; Tradup DJ; Stekel SF; Gorny KR; Hangiandreou NJ
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 19(2):298-304. PubMed ID: 29336119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Ultrasound instrumentation.
    Bartrum RJ
    Crit Rev Diagn Imaging; 1986; 25(3):279-303. PubMed ID: 3519082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of Imaging Parameters of Ultrasound Scanners: Baseline for Future Testing.
    Fabiszewska E; Pasicz K; Grabska I; Skrzyński W; Ślusarczyk-Kacprzyk W; Bulski W
    Pol J Radiol; 2017; 82():773-782. PubMed ID: 29657644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluating image quality in high-res ultrasound.
    Goldstein A
    Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1991 Dec; 13(12):89-100. PubMed ID: 10149751
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Relationship between image quality and ultrasound exposure level in diagnostic US devices.
    Harris GR; Stewart HF; Leo FP; Sanders RC
    Radiology; 1989 Nov; 173(2):313-7. PubMed ID: 2678246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparative evaluation of image quality from three CT simulation scanners.
    McCann C; Alasti H
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2004; 5(4):55-70. PubMed ID: 15738921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Investigating the efficacy of current quality assurance performance tests in diagnostic ultrasound.
    Donofrio NM; Hanson JA; Hirsch JH; Moore WE
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1984 Jun; 12(5):251-60. PubMed ID: 6429201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Simple uniformity and penetration phantoms for the quality assurance of ultrasound scanners.
    Groth MJ
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1994 Dec; 17(4):200-5. PubMed ID: 7872901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Performance testing of transrectal US scanners.
    Madsen EL; Zagzebski JA; Medina IR; Frank GR
    Radiology; 1994 Jan; 190(1):77-80. PubMed ID: 8259432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.