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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6691118)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Method of simulating dose reduction for digital radiographic systems.
    Båth M; Håkansson M; Tingberg A; Månsson LG
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):253-9. PubMed ID: 15933117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. [Investigation of low-contrast signal detection in computed radiography (CR)].
    Higashida Y; Matsumoto M; Yoshioka S; Takahashi M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1989 Nov; 49(11):1411-9. PubMed ID: 2602104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
    Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Perception of temporally filtered X-ray fluoroscopy images.
    Wilson DL; Jabri KN; Aufrichtig R
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1999 Jan; 18(1):22-31. PubMed ID: 10193694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Computer-aided image manipulation of intraoral radiographs to enhance diagnosis in dental practice: a review.
    Wenzel A
    Int Dent J; 1993 Apr; 43(2):99-108. PubMed ID: 8320010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [Digital synthesis of x-ray diagnostic images].
    Rabkin IKh; Vaĭnberg ZS; Gusev EA; Zykin LM; Leonov BI
    Med Tekh; 1984; (1):15-9. PubMed ID: 6708759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Digital chest radiography with a large image intensifier. An ROC study with an anthropomorphic phantom.
    Månsson LG; Kheddache S; Börjesson J; Mattsson S; Schlossman D
    Eur J Radiol; 1989 Nov; 9(4):208-13. PubMed ID: 2591385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
    Chotas HG; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Noise analysis of a digital radiography system.
    Arnold BA; Scheibe PO
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1984 Mar; 142(3):609-13. PubMed ID: 6364749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
    Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Contrast enhancement of noisy images by windowing: limitations due to the finite dynamic range of the display system.
    Metz CE; Chan HP; Doi K; Shen JH
    Med Phys; 1989; 16(2):170-8. PubMed ID: 2716699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of crossover exposure on radiographic image quality of screen-film systems.
    Doi K; Loo LN; Anderson TM; Frank PH
    Radiology; 1981 Jun; 139(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 7232738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comprehensive physical image quality evaluation of a selenium based digital x-ray imaging system for thorax radiography.
    Launders JH; Kengyelics SM; Cowen AR
    Med Phys; 1998 Jun; 25(6):986-97. PubMed ID: 9650189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.