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 *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27685102)

  • 1. Evaluation of cassette-based digital radiography detectors using standardized image quality metrics: AAPM TG-150 Draft Image Detector Tests.
    Li G; Greene TC; Nishino TK; Willis CE
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 17(5):391-417. PubMed ID: 27685102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. SU-E-I-101: Initial Implementation and Evaluation of AAPM TG-150 Draft Image Receptor Non-Uniformity Testing Recommendations.
    Dave J; Gingold E; Yorkston J; Bercha I; Goldman L; Walz-Flannigan A; Willis C
    Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part5):3648. PubMed ID: 28517653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control.
    Carton AK; Vandenbroucke D; Struye L; Maidment AD; Kao YH; Albert M; Bosmans H; Marchal G
    Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1684-95. PubMed ID: 16013727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Medical physics 3.0 versus 1.0: A case study in digital radiography quality control.
    Carver DE; Willis CE; Stauduhar PJ; Nishino TK; Wells JR; Samei E
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 Sep; 19(5):694-707. PubMed ID: 30117273
    [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. 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]  

  • 8. DQE of wireless digital detectors: comparative performance with differing filtration schemes.
    Samei E; Murphy S; Christianson O
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081910. PubMed ID: 23927324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Investigation of detector uniformity issues for Siemens Inspiration systems.
    Baldelli P; Keavey E; Manley M; Power G; Phelan N
    Phys Med; 2020 Jan; 69():262-268. PubMed ID: 31927263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. SU-E-I-102: Independent Implementation of AAPM TG-150 Draft Image Receptor Test Recommendations.
    Greene T; Nishino T; Willis C
    Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part5):3648. PubMed ID: 28517639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Toward standardized quantitative image quality (IQ) assessment in computed tomography (CT): A comprehensive framework for automated and comparative IQ analysis based on ICRU Report 87.
    Pahn G; Skornitzke S; Schlemmer HP; Kauczor HU; Stiller W
    Phys Med; 2016 Jan; 32(1):104-15. PubMed ID: 26520485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function.
    Samei E; Ranger NT; Dobbins JT; Chen Y
    Med Phys; 2006 May; 33(5):1454-65. PubMed ID: 16752580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Assessment of the effects of pixel loss on image quality in direct digital radiography.
    Padgett R; Kotre CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Mar; 49(6):977-86. PubMed ID: 15104320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.