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)

  • 21. Accurate MTF measurement in digital radiography using noise response.
    Kuhls-Gilcrist A; Jain A; Bednarek DR; Hoffmann KR; Rudin S
    Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):724-35. PubMed ID: 20229882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography.
    Willis CE
    J Digit Imaging; 2007 Mar; 20(1):1-3; author reply 4-5. PubMed ID: 17410404
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II. Noise power spectrum.
    Dobbins JT; Samei E; Ranger NT; Chen Y
    Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1466-75. PubMed ID: 16752581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. An image quality comparison of standard and dual-side read CR systems for pediatric radiology.
    Monnin P; Holzer Z; Wolf R; Neitzel U; Vock P; Gudinchet F; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):411-20. PubMed ID: 16532949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
    Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Measurement of focal spot size with slit camera using computed radiography and flat-panel based digital detectors.
    Rong XJ; Krugh KT; Shepard SJ; Geiser WR
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1768-75. PubMed ID: 12906194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
    Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
    Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of edge analysis techniques for the determination of the MTF of digital radiographic systems.
    Samei E; Buhr E; Granfors P; Vandenbroucke D; Wang X
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Aug; 50(15):3613-25. PubMed ID: 16030386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Quality assurance of computed and digital radiography systems.
    Walsh C; Gorman D; Byrne P; Larkin A; Dowling A; Malone JF
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):271-5. PubMed ID: 18319281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Doses measured using AEC on direct digital radiographic (DDR) X-rays systems: updated results with an RP 162 perspective.
    Bowden L; Faulkner R; Gallagher A; O'Connor U; Walsh C; Dowling A; O'Reilly G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb; 153(2):251-4. PubMed ID: 23175645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Exposure variability and image quality in computed radiography.
    Fauber TL
    Radiol Technol; 2009; 80(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 19153197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography.
    Doyle P; Martin CJ; Gentle D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):269-72. PubMed ID: 15933120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme.
    Monnin P; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Performance evaluation of two computed radiography systems and patient dose in pelvic examination.
    Elshiekh E; Suliman II; Habbani F
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):392-6. PubMed ID: 25836691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Objective assessment of image quality in conventional and digital mammography taking into account dynamic range.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):380-2. PubMed ID: 15933141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Electronic scanning-slit fluorography.
    Plenkovich D
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1989; 373():1-48. PubMed ID: 2488063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Techniques to improve the accuracy of noise power spectrum measurements in digital x-ray imaging based on background trends removal.
    Zhou Z; Gao F; Zhao H; Zhang L
    Med Phys; 2011 Mar; 38(3):1600-10. PubMed ID: 21520872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Cascaded systems analysis of noise reduction algorithms in dual-energy imaging.
    Richard S; Siewerdsen JH
    Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):586-601. PubMed ID: 18383680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.