BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36260966)

  • 1. Study of the performance change in digital mammography systems depending on the total number of examinations.
    Kaya Karaaslan M; Muzoğlu N; Gündoğdu Ö
    Biomed Phys Eng Express; 2022 Nov; 8(6):. PubMed ID: 36260966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
    Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 May; 54(9):2845-61. PubMed ID: 19384004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
    Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
    Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Imaging and Dosimetric Study on Direct Flat-Panel Detector-Based Digital Mammography System.
    Sharma R; Sharma SD; Sarkar PS; Datta D
    J Med Phys; 2018; 43(4):255-263. PubMed ID: 30636851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.
    Shrestha S; Vedantham S; Karellas A
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(5):1969-1993. PubMed ID: 28075335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Large area CMOS active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis: Analysis, modeling, and characterization.
    Zhao C; Kanicki J; Konstantinidis AC; Patel T
    Med Phys; 2015 Nov; 42(11):6294-308. PubMed ID: 26520722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
    Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.