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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31051946)

  • 1. The New Exposure Indicator for Digital Radiography.
    Seeram E
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2014 Jun; 45(2):144-158. PubMed ID: 31051946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Current state of practice regarding digital radiography exposure indicators and deviation indices: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 232.
    Dave JK; Jones AK; Fisher R; Hulme K; Rill L; Zamora D; Woodward A; Brady S; MacDougall RD; Goldman L; Lang S; Peck D; Apgar B; Shepard SJ; Uzenoff R; Willis C
    Med Phys; 2018 Nov; 45(11):e1146-e1160. PubMed ID: 30255505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Monitoring clinical exposure index and deviation index for dose optimization based on national diagnostic reference level: Focusing on general radiography of extremities.
    Park H; Yoon Y; Kim E; Jeong H; Kim J
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2022; 30(3):419-432. PubMed ID: 35124635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Are the target exposure index and deviation index used efficiently?
    Guðjónsdóttir J; Paalsson KE; Sveinsdóttir GP
    Radiography (Lond); 2021 Aug; 27(3):903-907. PubMed ID: 33707050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Utilization of upper and lower limits of exposure index in clinical digital radiography.
    Funahashi M; Kashiyama K; Nakamura T; Shiraishi J
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2022 Dec; 15(4):349-357. PubMed ID: 36036873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Digital radiography exposure indices: A review.
    Mothiram U; Brennan PC; Lewis SJ; Moran B; Robinson J
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2014 Jun; 61(2):112-8. PubMed ID: 26229645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Proper Management of the Clinical Exposure Index Based on Body Thickness Using Dose Optimization Tools in Digital Chest Radiography: A Phantom Study.
    Yoon Y; Park H; Kim J; Kim J; Roh Y; Tanaka N; Morishita J
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 May; 18(10):. PubMed ID: 34068390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. FEASIBILITY OF DISPLAYED EXPOSURE INDEX IN IEC STANDARD FRAMEWORK AS A DOSE OPTIMISATION TOOL FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS.
    Park H; Yoon Y; Tanaka N; Kim J; Kim J; Morishita J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Jul; 189(3):384-394. PubMed ID: 32364600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. THE CONSISTENCY OF EXPOSURE INDICATOR VALUES IN DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS.
    Jamil A; Mohd MI; Zain NM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2018 Dec; 182(4):413-418. PubMed ID: 29767799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The standardized exposure index for digital radiography: an opportunity for optimization of radiation dose to the pediatric population.
    Seibert JA; Morin RL
    Pediatr Radiol; 2011 May; 41(5):573-81. PubMed ID: 21491197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. USE OF CLINICAL EXPOSURE INDEX AND DEVIATION INDEX BASED ON NATIONAL DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVEL AS DOSE-OPTIMIZATION TOOLS FOR GENERAL RADIOGRAPHY IN KOREA.
    Park H; Yoon Y; Kim J; Kim J; Jeong H; Tanaka N; Morishita J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Nov; ():. PubMed ID: 33201240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Are exposure index values consistent in clinical practice? A multi-manufacturer investigation.
    Butler ML; Rainford L; Last J; Brennan PC
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):371-4. PubMed ID: 20223849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of the effects of subject thickness on the exposure index in digital radiography.
    Takaki T; Takeda K; Murakami S; Ogawa H; Ogawa M; Sakamoto M
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2016 Jan; 9(1):116-20. PubMed ID: 26613753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. From the use of exposure index in quality control testing to the use of exposure index for quality control of clinical images.
    Tsalafoutas IA; AlKhazzam S; AlNaemi H; Kharita MH
    Eur J Radiol Open; 2022; 9():100454. PubMed ID: 36386764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography.
    Fink C; Hallscheidt PJ; Noeldge G; Kampschulte A; Radeleff B; Hosch WP; Kauffmann GW; Hansmann J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Feb; 178(2):481-6. PubMed ID: 11804922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Lumbar spine radiography: digital flat-panel detector versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in monkeys as a pediatric model.
    Ludwig K; Ahlers K; Wormanns D; Freund M; Bernhardt TM; Diederich S; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2003 Oct; 229(1):140-4. PubMed ID: 12925714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Influence of interest region and interest value settings on exposure index-analysis using chest clinical images].
    Nakamae M; Miyajima Y; Nakano T; Kitanaka Y; Okura Y
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2014 Nov; 70(11):1250-7. PubMed ID: 25410331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Relationship between detector size and the need for extra images and their effect on radiation exposure in digital mammography screening.
    Entz K; Sommer A; Heindel W; Lenzen H
    Rofo; 2014 Sep; 186(9):868-75. PubMed ID: 24563411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.