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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25471961)

  • 1. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities.
    Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Diaz O; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
    Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2014 Oct; 59(19):5741-61. PubMed ID: 25198143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effective detective quantum efficiency for two mammography systems: measurement and comparison against established metrics.
    Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2013 Oct; 40(10):101916. PubMed ID: 24089918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.
    Cederström B; Fredenberg E
    Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121903. PubMed ID: 25471963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
    Marshall NW; Lemmens K; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
    Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comprehensive model for quantum noise characterization in digital mammography.
    Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2016 Mar; 61(5):2083-108. PubMed ID: 26895467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials.
    Mackenzie A; Marshall NW; Hadjipanteli A; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(6):2376-2397. PubMed ID: 28151431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
    Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
    Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
    Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Should processed or raw image data be used in mammographic image quality analyses? A comparative study of three full-field digital mammography systems.
    Borg M; Badr I; Royle G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jan; 163(1):102-17. PubMed ID: 24692583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum.
    Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Technical characterization of five x-ray detectors for paediatric radiography applications.
    Marshall NW; Smet M; Hofmans M; Pauwels H; De Clercq T; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Nov; 62(24):N573-N586. PubMed ID: 29064378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography.
    Warren LM; Mackenzie A; Cooke J; Given-Wilson RM; Wallis MG; Chakraborty DP; Dance DR; Bosmans H; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6):3202-13. PubMed ID: 22755704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Study of DQE dependence with beam quality on GE essential mammography flat panel.
    García-Mollá R; Linares R; Ayala R
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 12(1):3176. PubMed ID: 21330969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparative analysis of OTF, NPS, and DQE in energy integrating and photon counting digital x-ray detectors.
    Acciavatti RJ; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2010 Dec; 37(12):6480-95. PubMed ID: 21302803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.