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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3598748)

  • 1. Effect of pixel size on detectability of low-contrast signals in digital radiography.
    Giger ML; Doi K
    J Opt Soc Am A; 1987 May; 4(5):966-75. PubMed ID: 3598748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 3. Effect of pixel size on SNR and threshold contrast.
    Giger ML; Doi K
    Med Phys; 1985; 12(2):201-8. PubMed ID: 4000077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Signal detectability in digital radiography: spatial domain figures of merit.
    Gagne RM; Boswell JS; Myers KJ
    Med Phys; 2003 Aug; 30(8):2180-93. PubMed ID: 12945984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns.
    Ishida M; Doi K; Loo LN; Metz CE; Lehr JL
    Radiology; 1984 Feb; 150(2):569-75. PubMed ID: 6691118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography.
    Aufrichtig R; Xue P
    Phys Med Biol; 2000 Sep; 45(9):2653-69. PubMed ID: 11008963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography.
    Aufrichtig R
    Med Phys; 1999 Jul; 26(7):1349-58. PubMed ID: 10435537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 4. Effect of unsharp masking on the detectability of simple patterns.
    Loo LN; Doi K; Metz CE
    Med Phys; 1985; 12(2):209-14. PubMed ID: 4000078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum.
    Giger ML; Doi K; Metz CE
    Med Phys; 1984; 11(6):797-805. PubMed ID: 6513887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Computational and human observer image quality evaluation of low dose, knowledge-based CT iterative reconstruction.
    Eck BL; Fahmi R; Brown KM; Zabic S; Raihani N; Miao J; Wilson DL
    Med Phys; 2015 Oct; 42(10):6098-111. PubMed ID: 26429285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 8. Detection of simulated low-contrast objects in digital subtraction angiographic images.
    Ohara K; Chan HP; Doi K; Giger ML; Fujita H
    Med Phys; 1986; 13(3):304-11. PubMed ID: 3724689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
    Segui JA; Zhao W
    Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficiency of low-contrast detail detectability in fluoroscopic imaging.
    Tapiovaara MJ
    Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):655-64. PubMed ID: 9167156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. NPWE model observer as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis of digital detectors in general radiography.
    Van Peteghem N; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2016 Nov; 61(21):N575-N591. PubMed ID: 27754987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography.
    Doyle P; Martin CJ; Gentle D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):269-72. PubMed ID: 15933120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging.
    Myers KJ; Barrett HH; Borgstrom MC; Patton DD; Seeley GW
    J Opt Soc Am A; 1985 Oct; 2(10):1752-9. PubMed ID: 4056949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
    Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
    Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
    Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Correlation between human observer performance and model observer performance in differential phase contrast CT.
    Li K; Garrett J; Chen GH
    Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):111905. PubMed ID: 24320438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
    Liu H; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Benevides L; Gu S; Kyprianou IS
    Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.