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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28895040)

  • 1. Clinical utility of ultra-low-dose pre-test exposure to avoid unnecessary patient exposure due to positioning errors: a simulation study.
    Nose H; Shiraishi J
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2017 Dec; 10(4):489-495. PubMed ID: 28895040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Super-resolution variable-dose imaging in digital radiography: quality and dose reduction with a fluoroscopic flat-panel detector.
    Berliner L; Buffa A
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2011 Sep; 6(5):663-73. PubMed ID: 21298404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Film retakes in digital and conventional radiography.
    Akhtar W; Aslam M; Ali A; Mirza K; Ahmad N
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2008 Mar; 18(3):151-3. PubMed ID: 18460242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography at different exposure doses versus mammography film: possibility of radiation dose reduction in detecting rheumatologic bone defects.
    Zähringer M; Reineck S; Perniok A; Krüger K; Andermahr J; Rubbert A; Winnekendonk G
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Mar; 49(2):157-66. PubMed ID: 18300139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical application of a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction in skeletal radiography.
    Strotzer M; Gmeinwieser J; Völk M; Fründ R; Seitz J; Manke C; Albrich H; Feuerbach S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):23-7. PubMed ID: 9648757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Positioning errors in panoramic images in general dentistry in Sörmland County, Sweden.
    Ekströmer K; Hjalmarsson L
    Swed Dent J; 2014; 38(1):31-8. PubMed ID: 26995809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Feasibility of dose reduction using needle-structured image plates versus powder-structured plates for computed radiography of the knee.
    Gruber M; Weber M; Homolka P; Nemec S; Fruehwald-Pallamar J; Uffmann M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Aug; 197(2):W318-23. PubMed ID: 21785059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Intraoral radiology in general dental practices - a comparison of digital and film-based X-ray systems with regard to radiation protection and dose reduction.
    Anissi HD; Geibel MA
    Rofo; 2014 Aug; 186(8):762-7. PubMed ID: 24648236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Chest radiography with a flat-panel detector: image quality with dose reduction after copper filtration.
    Hamer OW; Sirlin CB; Strotzer M; Borisch I; Zorger N; Feuerbach S; Völk M
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):691-700. PubMed ID: 16192324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
    Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Imaging performance with different doses in skeletal radiography: comparison of a needle-structured and a conventional storage phosphor system with a flat-panel detector.
    Wirth S; Treitl M; Reiser MF; Körner M
    Radiology; 2009 Jan; 250(1):152-60. PubMed ID: 19001150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Series: Practical Evaluation of Clinical Image Quality (4): Determination of Image Quality in Digital Radiography System].
    Katayama R
    Igaku Butsuri; 2016; 36(3):166-172. PubMed ID: 28442655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.
    Strotzer M; Völk M; Wild T; von Landenberg P; Feuerbach S
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):512-5. PubMed ID: 10796933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reducing the radiation dose during excretory urography: flat-panel silicon x-ray detector versus computed radiography.
    Zähringer M; Hesselmann V; Schulte O; Kamm KF; Braun W; Haupt G; Krug B; Lackner K
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):931-7. PubMed ID: 14500204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Radiation dose and image quality in diagnostic radiology. Optimization of the dose-image quality relationship with clinical experience from scoliosis radiography, coronary intervention and a flat-panel digital detector.
    Geijer H
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 2002 Mar; 43(427):1-43. PubMed ID: 12108231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Experience in retake analysis for digital mammography at a university hospital.
    Prieto C; Ten JI; Montes M; Ciudad MJ; Fernández J; Vano E; Arrazola J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):354-8. PubMed ID: 25821211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Image rejects/retakes--radiographic challenges.
    Waaler D; Hofmann B
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):375-9. PubMed ID: 20159914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Novel, portable, cassette-sized, and wireless flat-panel digital radiography system: initial workflow results versus computed radiography.
    Lehnert T; Naguib NN; Ackermann H; Schomerus C; Jacobi V; Balzer JO; Vogl TJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1368-71. PubMed ID: 21606301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.