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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28228823)

  • 1. Recognising small image quality differences for ultrasound probes and the potential of misdiagnosis due to undetected side lobes.
    Doblhoff G; Satrapa J; Coulthard P
    Ultrasound; 2017 Feb; 25(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 28228823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Impact of element pitch on synthetic aperture ultrasound imaging.
    Hasegawa H; de Korte CL
    J Med Ultrason (2001); 2016 Jul; 43(3):317-25. PubMed ID: 26896949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A quality assurance framework for the fully automated and objective evaluation of image quality in cone-beam computed tomography.
    Steiding C; Kolditz D; Kalender WA
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031901. PubMed ID: 24593719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Side lobe free medical ultrasonic imaging with application to assessing side lobe suppression filter.
    Jeong MK; Kwon SJ
    Biomed Eng Lett; 2018 Nov; 8(4):355-364. PubMed ID: 30603220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Phantom-based quality assurance measurements in B-mode ultrasound.
    Mannila V; Sipilä O
    Acta Radiol Short Rep; 2013; 2(8):2047981613511967. PubMed ID: 24349715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Side lobes and grating lobes artifacts in ultrasound imaging.
    Barthez PY; Léveillé R; Scrivani PV
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 1997; 38(5):387-93. PubMed ID: 9335099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A Comparative Study on the Influence of Probe Placement on Quality Assurance Measurements in B-mode Ultrasound by Means of Ultrasound Phantoms.
    Scorza A; Conforto S; D'Anna C; Sciuto SA
    Open Biomed Eng J; 2015; 9():164-78. PubMed ID: 26312078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Estimation and suppression of side lobes in medical ultrasound imaging systems.
    Kwon SJ; Jeong MK
    Biomed Eng Lett; 2017 Feb; 7(1):31-43. PubMed ID: 30603149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A 3D printed modular phantom for quality assurance of image-guided small animal irradiators: Design, imaging experiments, and Monte Carlo simulations.
    Breitkreutz DY; Bialek S; Vojnovic B; Kavanagh A; Johnstone CD; Rovner Z; Tsouchlos P; Kanesalingam T; Bazalova-Carter M
    Med Phys; 2019 May; 46(5):2015-2024. PubMed ID: 30947359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Image quality control in breast ultrasound.
    Lagalla R; Midiri M
    Eur J Radiol; 1998 May; 27 Suppl 2():S229-33. PubMed ID: 9652527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Ultrasound grayscale image quality comparison between a 2D intracavitary transducer and a 3D intracavitary transducer used in 2D mode: A phantom study.
    Zhou W; Long Z; Tradup DJ; Stekel SF; Browne JE; Brown DL; Hangiandreou NJ
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2019 Jun; 20(6):134-140. PubMed ID: 31002482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Detecting failed elements on phased array ultrasound transducers using the Edinburgh Pipe Phantom.
    Welsh D; Inglis S; Pye SD
    Ultrasound; 2016 May; 24(2):68-93. PubMed ID: 27482276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Gap-filling method for suppressing grating lobes in ultrasound imaging: Experimental study with deep-learning approach.
    Kumar V; Lee PY; Kim BH; Fatemi M; Alizad A
    IEEE Access; 2020; 8():76276-76286. PubMed ID: 32612897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluations of UltraiQ software for objective ultrasound image quality assessment using images from a commercial scanner.
    Long Z; Tradup DJ; Stekel SF; Gorny KR; Hangiandreou NJ
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 19(2):298-304. PubMed ID: 29336119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment.
    Thijssen JM; Weijers G; de Korte CL
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 33(3):460-71. PubMed ID: 17275983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Technical assessment of a cone-beam CT scanner for otolaryngology imaging: image quality, dose, and technique protocols.
    Xu J; Reh DD; Carey JP; Mahesh M; Siewerdsen JH
    Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):4932-42. PubMed ID: 22894419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quantification accuracy for dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) CT imaging: phantom and quality assurance framework.
    Coolens C; Mohseni H; Dhodi S; Ma S; Keller H; Jaffray DA
    Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():192-198. PubMed ID: 30150044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Performance evaluation of an 85-cm-bore X-ray computed tomography scanner designed for radiation oncology and comparison with current diagnostic CT scanners.
    Garcia-Ramirez JL; Mutic S; Dempsey JF; Low DA; Purdy JA
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2002 Mar; 52(4):1123-31. PubMed ID: 11958910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. MO-D-218-02: Ultrasound Phantoms in Image Quality Measurements and Performance Assessment.
    Madsen E
    Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part21):3870. PubMed ID: 28518253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How to measure CT image quality: variations in CT-numbers, uniformity and low contrast resolution for a CT quality assurance phantom.
    Gulliksrud K; Stokke C; Martinsen AC
    Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):521-6. PubMed ID: 24530005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.