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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29792612)

  • 1. [CT Quality Control Test from the Second Level 2nd Class Hospitals in Shanghai].
    Lu H; Wang W; Li B
    Zhongguo Yi Liao Qi Xie Za Zhi; 2016 Nov; 40(6):451-3. PubMed ID: 29792612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Application of Quality Control Circle Activity in CT Quality Control Management].
    Lu H; Li B; Su Q
    Zhongguo Yi Liao Qi Xie Za Zhi; 2018 May; 42(3):232-234. PubMed ID: 29885137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Objective comparison of high-contrast spatial resolution and low-contrast detectability for various clinical protocols on multiple CT scanners.
    Racine D; Viry A; Becce F; Schmidt S; Ba A; Bochud FO; Edyvean S; Schegerer A; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2017 Sep; 44(9):e153-e163. PubMed ID: 28901621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Quantitation of clinical feedback on image quality differences between two CT scanner models.
    Bache ST; Stauduhar PJ; Liu X; Loyer EM; John RX
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 18(2):163-169. PubMed ID: 28300384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Design and performance characteristics of a digital flat-panel computed tomography system.
    Ross W; Cody DD; Hazle JD
    Med Phys; 2006 Jun; 33(6):1888-901. PubMed ID: 16872096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Quality control of CT systems by automated monitoring of key performance indicators: a two-year study.
    Nowik P; Bujila R; Poludniowski G; Fransson A
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 16(4):254–265. PubMed ID: 26219012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. CT image quality over time: comparison of image quality for six different CT scanners over a six-year period.
    Roa AM; Andersen HK; Martinsen AC
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2015 Mar; 16(2):4972. PubMed ID: 26103172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. New low-contrast resolution phantoms for computed tomography.
    Suess C; Kalender WA; Coman JM
    Med Phys; 1999 Feb; 26(2):296-302. PubMed ID: 10076988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A novel objective method for assessing high-contrast spatial resolution in CT based on the Rayleigh criterion.
    Zhang P; Wan G; Li F; Li X; Liu W; Wang G
    Med Phys; 2017 Feb; 44(2):460-469. PubMed ID: 28019671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dual-energy CT quantitative imaging: a comparison study between twin-beam and dual-source CT scanners.
    Almeida IP; Schyns LE; Öllers MC; van Elmpt W; Parodi K; Landry G; Verhaegen F
    Med Phys; 2017 Jan; 44(1):171-179. PubMed ID: 28070917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Performance evaluation and quality assurance of computed tomography scanners, with illustrations from the EMI, ACTA, and Delta scanners.
    McCullough EC; Payne JT; Baker HL; Hattery RR; Sheedy PF; Stephens DH; Gedgaudus E
    Radiology; 1976 Jul; 120(1):173-88. PubMed ID: 935444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of commercial extension plates for the ACR CT accreditation phantom.
    Greene-Donnelly KA; Ogden KM
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Jan; 17(1):416-420. PubMed ID: 26894348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Development and performance evaluation of an experimental fine pitch detector multislice CT scanner.
    Imai Y; Nukui M; Ishihara Y; Fujishige T; Ogata K; Moritake M; Kurochi H; Ogata T; Yahata M; Tang X
    Med Phys; 2009 Apr; 36(4):1120-7. PubMed ID: 19472617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characteristic image quality of a third generation dual-source MDCT scanner: Noise, resolution, and detectability.
    Solomon J; Wilson J; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4941-53. PubMed ID: 26233220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A routine quality assurance test for CT automatic exposure control systems.
    Iball GR; Moore AC; Crawford EJ
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Jul; 17(4):291-306. PubMed ID: 27455490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Image quality and patient dose in computed tomography examinations in Greece.
    Simantirakis G; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Dimitriou P
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):129-32. PubMed ID: 21743078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interphantom and interscanner variations for Hounsfield units--establishment of reference values for HU in a commercial QA phantom.
    Sande EP; Martinsen AC; Hole EO; Olerud HM
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Sep; 55(17):5123-35. PubMed ID: 20714048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the forearm using general purpose spiral whole-body CT scanners: accuracy, precision and comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
    Engelke K; Libanati C; Liu Y; Wang H; Austin M; Fuerst T; Stampa B; Timm W; Genant HK
    Bone; 2009 Jul; 45(1):110-8. PubMed ID: 19345291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.