BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24190611)

  • 1. Quality of images acquired with and without grid in digital mammography.
    Al Khalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Saeed RA
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 24190611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
    Alkhalifah K; Brindabhan A; Alsaeed R
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
    Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography.
    Alkhalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Asbeutah AM
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2016 Oct; 24(5):681-689. PubMed ID: 27341625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
    Al Khalifah K; Brindabhan A; Mathew M; Davidson R
    J Allied Health; 2019; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
    Baydush AH; Floyd CE
    Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of the antiscatter grid on full-field digital mammography phantom images.
    Chakraborty DP
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):12-22. PubMed ID: 10036663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.
    Alkhalifah K; Brindhaban A
    Med Princ Pract; 2018; 27(3):211-216. PubMed ID: 29514152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM.
    Al Khalifah K; Davidson R; Zhou A
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2020 Mar; 13(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 31749130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
    Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of automated CDMAM readings for non-standard CDMAM imaging conditions: grid-less acquisitions and scatter correction.
    Binst J; Sterckx B; Bemelmans F; Cockmartin L; Van Peteghem N; Marshall N; Bosmans H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):350-3. PubMed ID: 25821214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging: scatter and nonuniformity corrections.
    Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2005 Nov; 32(11):3395-408. PubMed ID: 16372415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [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]  

  • 19. Guidelines for anti-scatter grid use in pediatric digital radiography.
    Fritz S; Jones AK
    Pediatr Radiol; 2014 Mar; 44(3):313-21. PubMed ID: 24281685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.