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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32302229)

  • 21. [Investigation of image quality identification utilizing physical image quality measurement in direct- and indirect-type of flat panel detectors and computed radiography].
    Yokoi T; Takata T; Ichikawa K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2011; 67(11):1415-25. PubMed ID: 22104233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity.
    Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):115-22. PubMed ID: 9927090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Intraoral radiographic storage phosphor image mean pixel values and signal-to-noise ratio: effects of calibration.
    Hayakawa Y; Farman AG; Kelly MS; Kuroyanagi K
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Nov; 86(5):601-5. PubMed ID: 9830656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Relationship between radiation dose reduction and image quality change in photostimulable phosphor luminescence X-ray imaging systems.
    Sakurai T; Kawamata R; Kozai Y; Kaku Y; Nakamura K; Saito M; Wakao H; Kashima I
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 May; 39(4):207-15. PubMed ID: 20395461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis.
    Zhao B; Zhou J; Hu YH; Mertelmeier T; Ludwig J; Zhao W
    Med Phys; 2009 Jan; 36(1):240-51. PubMed ID: 19235392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effect of image sharpening on radiographic image quality.
    Clark JL; Wadhwani CP; Abramovitch K; Rice DD; Kattadiyil MT
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):927-933. PubMed ID: 30166247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems.
    Udupa H; Mah P; Dove SB; McDavid WD
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Dec; 116(6):774-83. PubMed ID: 24237729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Comparison of Efficiency and Image Quality of Photostimulable Phosphor Plate and Charge-Coupled Device Receptors in Dental Radiography.
    Zhang W; Huynh C; Jadhav A; Pinales J; Arvizu L; Tsai J; Flores N
    J Dent Educ; 2019 Oct; 83(10):1205-1212. PubMed ID: 31235501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Dependency of image quality on system configuration parameters in a stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system.
    Tucker AW; Lu J; Zhou O
    Med Phys; 2013 Mar; 40(3):031917. PubMed ID: 23464332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 1024-pixel image matrix for chest CT - Impact on image quality of bronchial structures in phantoms and patients.
    Euler A; Martini K; Baessler B; Eberhard M; Schoeck F; Alkadhi H; Frauenfelder T
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(6):e0234644. PubMed ID: 32544172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Image Quality and Clinical Usefulness of Ray-summation Image Reconstructed from CT Data, Compared with Digital Radiography].
    Suzuki S; Ichikawa K; Tamaki S
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2017; 73(5):372-381. PubMed ID: 28529251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Stationary intraoral digital tomosynthesis using a carbon nanotube X-ray source array.
    Shan J; Tucker AW; Gaalaas LR; Wu G; Platin E; Mol A; Lu J; Zhou O
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(9):20150098. PubMed ID: 26090933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility.
    Shi XQ; Benchimol D; Näsström K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130249. PubMed ID: 24170798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Evaluating phantom image quality parameters to optimise patient radiation dose in dental digital radiology.
    Gonzalez L; Vano E; Fernandez R; Ziraldo V; Delgado J; Delgado V; Moro J; Ubeda C
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(1):95-101. PubMed ID: 22232776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Quality assurance phantom for digital dental imaging.
    Mah P; McDavid WD; Dove SB
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Nov; 112(5):632-9. PubMed ID: 21862364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Experimental comparison of noise and resolution for 2k and 4k storage phosphor radiography systems.
    Flynn MJ; Samei E
    Med Phys; 1999 Aug; 26(8):1612-23. PubMed ID: 10501062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reproducibility of pixel values for two photostimulable phosphor plates in consecutive standardized scannings.
    Freitas P; Yaedú RY; Rubira-Bullen IR; Escarpinati M; Vieira MC; Schiabel H; Lauris JR
    Braz Oral Res; 2006; 20(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 17119702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.