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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36995917)

  • 1. AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography.
    Little K; Reiser I; Apgar B; Dalal P; Dave J; Fisher R; Hulme K; Jafari ME; Marshall E; Meyer S; Moore Q; Murphy N; Nishino T; Nye K; O'Donnell K; Sabol J; Sanchez A; Sensakovic W; Tarbox L; Uzenoff R; Walz-Flannigan A; Willis C; Zhang J
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2023 May; 24(5):e13938. PubMed ID: 36995917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Unified Database for Rejected Image Analysis Across Multiple Vendors in Radiography.
    Little KJ; Reiser I; Liu L; Kinsey T; Sánchez AA; Haas K; Mallory F; Froman C; Lu ZF
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2017 Feb; 14(2):208-216. PubMed ID: 27663061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reject rate analysis in digital radiography: an Australian emergency imaging department case study.
    Atkinson S; Neep M; Starkey D
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2020 Mar; 67(1):72-79. PubMed ID: 31318181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is reject analysis necessary after converting to computed radiography?
    Honea R; Elissa Blado M; Ma Y
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():41-52. PubMed ID: 12105696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Digital radiography reject analysis of examinations with multiple rejects: an Australian emergency imaging department clinical audit.
    Stephenson-Smith B; Neep MJ; Rowntree P
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2021 Sep; 68(3):245-252. PubMed ID: 33826800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. One year's results from a server-based system for performing reject analysis and exposure analysis in computed radiography.
    Jones AK; Polman R; Willis CE; Shepard SJ
    J Digit Imaging; 2011 Apr; 24(2):243-55. PubMed ID: 19885636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Analysis and Economic Implication of X-Ray Film Reject in Diagnostic Radiology Department of Jimma University Specialized Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia.
    Zewdu M; Kadir E; Berhane M
    Ethiop J Health Sci; 2017 Jul; 27(4):421-426. PubMed ID: 29217944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151.
    Jones AK; Heintz P; Geiser W; Goldman L; Jerjian K; Martin M; Peck D; Pfeiffer D; Ranger N; Yorkston J
    Med Phys; 2015 Nov; 42(11):6658-70. PubMed ID: 26520756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Digital radiography reject analysis: data collection methodology, results, and recommendations from an in-depth investigation at two hospitals.
    Foos DH; Sehnert WJ; Reiner B; Siegel EL; Segal A; Waldman DL
    J Digit Imaging; 2009 Mar; 22(1):89-98. PubMed ID: 18446413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Mammographic image reject rate analysis and cause - A National Maltese Study.
    Mercieca N; Portelli JL; Jadva-Patel H
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Feb; 23(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 28290336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography.
    Peer S; Peer R; Giacomuzzi SM; Jaschke W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):69-71. PubMed ID: 11487846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Projection X-ray Imaging: Radiography, Mammography, Fluoroscopy.
    Seibert JA
    Health Phys; 2019 Feb; 116(2):148-156. PubMed ID: 30585956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography.
    Peer S; Peer R; Walcher M; Pohl M; Jaschke W
    Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(8):1693-6. PubMed ID: 10525892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Description and implementation of a quality control program in an imaging-based clinical trial.
    Cagnon CH; Cody DD; McNitt-Gray MF; Seibert JA; Judy PF; Aberle DR
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1431-41. PubMed ID: 17111584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An analysis of radiographic repeat and reject rates.
    Adler A; Carlton R; Wold B
    Radiol Technol; 1992; 63(5):308-14. PubMed ID: 1631291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Digital radiography reject analysis: A comparison between two radiology departments in New Zealand.
    Bantas G; Sweeney RJ; Mdletshe S
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2023 Jun; 70(2):137-144. PubMed ID: 36657740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Films reject analysis for conventional radiography in Iranian main hospitals.
    Roohi Shalemaei R
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):220-2. PubMed ID: 21764806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality control of storage phosphor digital radiography systems.
    Freedman M; Steller D; Jafroudi H; Mun SK
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 May; 8(2):67-74. PubMed ID: 7612704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of digital radiography practice using exposure index tracking.
    Scott AW; Zhou Y; Allahverdian J; Nute JL; Lee C
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Nov; 17(6):343-355. PubMed ID: 27929507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.