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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27282343)

  • 1. Optimizing quality of digital mammographic imaging using Taguchi analysis with an ACR accreditation phantom.
    Chen CY; Pan LF; Chiang FT; Yeh DM; Pan LK
    Bioengineered; 2016 Jul; 7(4):226-34. PubMed ID: 27282343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.
    Ghani MU; Wong MD; Wu D; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Fuh J; Wu X; Liu H
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 May; 62(9):3523-3538. PubMed ID: 28379851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Taguchi dynamic analysis application to computer tomography number-mass density linear dependence optimization.
    Hsun-Nan K; Juei-En Y; Chia-Hui C; Lung-Fa P; Lung-Kwang P
    Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon); 2017 Dec; 22(sup1):45-53. PubMed ID: 28922941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images.
    Chakraborty DP
    Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Visibility of microcalcification in cone beam breast CT: effects of X-ray tube voltage and radiation dose.
    Lai CJ; Shaw CC; Chen L; Altunbas MC; Liu X; Han T; Wang T; Yang WT; Whitman GJ; Tu SJ
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2995-3004. PubMed ID: 17822008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimizing left anterior oblique (LAO) caudal imaging in coronary angiography using the Taguchi method: A phantom study with clinical verification.
    Pan LF; Chu KH; Sher HF; Pan LK
    Int J Cardiovasc Imaging; 2017 Sep; 33(9):1287-1295. PubMed ID: 28364178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography].
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2000 Nov; 172(11):940-5. PubMed ID: 11142129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
    Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
    Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
    Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Variations in signal-to-noise characteristics of tissue-equivalent attenuators for mammographic automatic exposure control system performance evaluation.
    Morrison CK; Macdonald EB; Bevins NB
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2023 Feb; 24(2):e13870. PubMed ID: 36519622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Radiographic techniques in screen-film mammography.
    LaVoy TR; Huda W; Ogden KM
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2002; 3(3):248-54. PubMed ID: 12132948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging.
    Gislason AJ; Davies AG; Cowen AR
    Med Phys; 2010 Oct; 37(10):5258-69. PubMed ID: 21089760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Patient dose in digital mammography.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Establishing minimum performance standards, calibration intervals, and optimal exposure values for a whole breast digital mammography unit.
    Kimme-Smith C; Lewis C; Beifuss M; Williams MB; Bassett LW
    Med Phys; 1998 Dec; 25(12):2410-6. PubMed ID: 9874835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.