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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3737686)

  • 1. Noise and threshold contrast characteristics of a digital fluorographic system.
    Harrison RM; Kotre CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 1986 May; 31(5):515-26. PubMed ID: 3737686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Receptor dose in digital fluorography: a comparison between theory and practice.
    Marshall NW; Kotre CJ; Robson KJ; Lecomber AR
    Phys Med Biol; 2001 Apr; 46(4):1283-96. PubMed ID: 11324965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Paediatric dose reduction with the introduction of digital fluorography.
    Mooney RB; McKinstry J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):117-20. PubMed ID: 11487817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A set of X-ray test objects for image quality control in digital subtraction fluorography. I: Design considerations.
    Cowen AR; Haywood JM; Workman A; Clarke OF
    Br J Radiol; 1987 Oct; 60(718):1001-9. PubMed ID: 3315090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Threshold contrast detail detectability curves for fluoroscopy and digital acquisition using modern image intensifier systems.
    Evans DS; Mackenzie A; Lawinski CP; Smith D
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Sep; 77(921):751-8. PubMed ID: 15447961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology.
    Siewerdsen JH; Antonuk LE; el-Mohri Y; Yorkston J; Huang W; Cunningham IA
    Med Phys; 1998 May; 25(5):614-28. PubMed ID: 9608470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The quality assurance and constancy checking of fluoroscopy and fluorography systems.
    Schreiner-Karoussou A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):49-52. PubMed ID: 11487842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Subjective and objective measures of image quality in digital fluoroscopy.
    Walsh C; Dowling A; Meade A; Malone J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):34-7. PubMed ID: 16461534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fluoroscopy: recording of fluoroscopic images and automatic exposure control.
    Geise RA
    Radiographics; 2001; 21(1):227-36. PubMed ID: 11158657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Contrast-detail-dose and dose efficiency analysis of a scanning digital and a screen-film-grid radiographic system.
    Cohen G; Wagner LK; Amtey SR; Di Bianca FA
    Med Phys; 1981; 8(3):358-67. PubMed ID: 7322059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A review of image quality and dose issues in digital fluorography and digital subtraction angiography.
    Kotre CJ; Marshall NW
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):73-6. PubMed ID: 11487847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Indications for digital fluorography and storage-phosphor plates in pediatrics: certainties and questionable points.
    Durand C; Baudain P; Francois P; Kandelman M
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 Feb; 8(1 Suppl 1):89-91. PubMed ID: 7734549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
    Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
    Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. [The economic expediency of digital fluorography].
    Blinov NN; Gubenko MB; Utkin PM
    Med Tekh; 1999; (5):41-4. PubMed ID: 10560099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A figure of merit for the assessment of image intensifier systems.
    McRobbie DW; Hancock AP; Castellano IA
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Oct; 65(778):878-84. PubMed ID: 1422661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: initial evaluation.
    Geijer H; Beckman K; Jonsson B; Andersson T; Persliden J
    Radiology; 2001 Feb; 218(2):402-10. PubMed ID: 11161153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality assurance of computed and digital radiography systems.
    Walsh C; Gorman D; Byrne P; Larkin A; Dowling A; Malone JF
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):271-5. PubMed ID: 18319281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of image quality in fluoroscopy by measurements and Monte Carlo calculations.
    Tapiovaara MJ; Sandborg M
    Phys Med Biol; 1995 Apr; 40(4):589-607. PubMed ID: 7610116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.