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: 27222198)

  • 1. Benchmarking the performance of fixed-image receptor digital radiographic systems part 1: a novel method for image quality analysis.
    Lee KL; Ireland TA; Bernardo M
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2016 Jun; 39(2):453-62. PubMed ID: 27222198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Benchmarking the performance of fixed-image receptor digital radiography systems. Part 2: system performance metric.
    Lee KL; Bernardo M; Ireland TA
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2016 Jun; 39(2):463-76. PubMed ID: 27222199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
    Boyce SJ; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
    Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection
    Ann ICRP; 2004; 34(1):1-73. PubMed ID: 15302167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Temporal stability of digital radiographic detectors.
    Ireland TA; Irvine M
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2016 Mar; 39(1):229-37. PubMed ID: 26743663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The impact of increased Al filtration on x-ray tube loading and image quality in diagnostic radiology.
    Behrman RH
    Med Phys; 2003 Jan; 30(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 12557981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency.
    Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Pattacini P; Ginocchi V; Iori M
    Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2617-27. PubMed ID: 22559632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Method of simulating dose reduction for digital radiographic systems.
    Båth M; Håkansson M; Tingberg A; Månsson LG
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):253-9. PubMed ID: 15933117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comprehensive physical image quality evaluation of a selenium based digital x-ray imaging system for thorax radiography.
    Launders JH; Kengyelics SM; Cowen AR
    Med Phys; 1998 Jun; 25(6):986-97. PubMed ID: 9650189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The benefit of accounting for DQE variations in simulated dose reduction of digital radiographic systems.
    Svalkvist A; Båth M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):57-61. PubMed ID: 20176729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An alternative method for noise analysis using pixel variance as part of quality control procedures on digital mammography systems.
    Bouwman R; Young K; Lazzari B; Ravaglia V; Broeders M; van Engen R
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Nov; 54(22):6809-22. PubMed ID: 19847017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Patient dosimetry and image quality in digital radiology from online audit of the X-ray system.
    Vano E; Fernandez JM; Ten JI; Gonzalez L; Guibelalde E; Prieto C
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):199-203. PubMed ID: 16461529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
    Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Patient doses and image quality in digital chest radiology.
    Salát D; Nikodemová D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):147-9. PubMed ID: 18321878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images.
    Saunders RS; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2003 Nov; 30(11):3006-17. PubMed ID: 14655948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.