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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36104636)

  • 1. New Software for DQE Calculation in Digital Mammography Compliant with IEC 62220-1-2.
    Dobrzyńska M; Wysocka-Rabin A; Fabiszewska E; Pasicz K; Skrzyński W
    J Digit Imaging; 2022 Oct; 35(5):1069-1078. PubMed ID: 36104636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Free software for performing physical analysis of systems for digital radiography and mammography.
    Donini B; Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Bertolini M
    Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051903. PubMed ID: 24784382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comprehensive model for quantum noise characterization in digital mammography.
    Monnin P; Bosmans H; Verdun FR; Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2016 Mar; 61(5):2083-108. PubMed ID: 26895467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Development and application of programs to measure modulation transfer function, noise power spectrum and detective quantum efficiency.
    Padgett R; Kotre CJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):283-7. PubMed ID: 16461517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
    Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector.
    Zhao W; Ji WG; Debrie A; Rowlands JA
    Med Phys; 2003 Feb; 30(2):254-63. PubMed ID: 12607843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Physical and psychophysical characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography.
    Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Golinelli P; Acchiappati D; Gallo E
    Med Phys; 2009 Nov; 36(11):5139-48. PubMed ID: 19994524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Guntern D; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2007 Mar; 34(3):906-14. PubMed ID: 17441236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Quantitative image quality measurements of a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
    Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
    Rofo; 2013 Dec; 185(12):1188-94. PubMed ID: 23888475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimization of phosphor-based detector design for oblique x-ray incidence in digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Acciavatti RJ; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2011 Nov; 38(11):6188. PubMed ID: 22047384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
    Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy validation of incident photon fluence on detective quantum efficiency in mammography.
    Haba T; Koyama S; Otani N
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2018 Dec; 41(4):847-852. PubMed ID: 30151709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype.
    Vedantham S; Karellas A; Suryanarayanan S; Albagli D; Han S; Tkaczyk EJ; Landberg CE; Opsahl-Ong B; Granfors PR; Levis I; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE
    Med Phys; 2000 Mar; 27(3):558-67. PubMed ID: 10757607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
    Marshall NW; Lemmens K; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a developmental detector for digital mammography.
    Williams MB; Simoni PU; Smilowitz L; Stanton M; Phillips W; Stewart A
    Med Phys; 1999 Nov; 26(11):2273-85. PubMed ID: 10587208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors.
    Ghetti C; Borrini A; Ortenzia O; Rossi R; Ordóñez PL
    Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 18383665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography.
    Urbanczyk H; McDonagh E; Marshall NW; Castellano I
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1987-2003. PubMed ID: 22429938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance of a high fill factor, indirect detection prototype flat-panel imager for mammography.
    El-Mohri Y; Antonuk LE; Zhao Q; Wang Y; Li Y; Du H; Sawant A
    Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):315-27. PubMed ID: 17278517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Technical Note: Impact on detective quantum efficiency of edge angle determination method by International Electrotechnical Commission methodology for cardiac x-ray image detectors.
    Gislason-Lee AJ; Tunstall CM; Kengyelics SK; Cowen AR; Davies AG
    Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4423-7. PubMed ID: 26233172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.