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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 754286)

  • 1. Some perspectives on the decision theoretic approach to medical images.
    Wagner RF
    Semin Nucl Med; 1978 Oct; 8(4):307-15. PubMed ID: 754286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Improvement of scintigrams by computer processing.
    Pizer SM; Todd-Pokropek AE
    Semin Nucl Med; 1978 Apr; 8(2):125-46. PubMed ID: 684440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Detectors for digital mammography.
    Yaffe MJ; Mainprize JG
    Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2004 Aug; 3(4):309-24. PubMed ID: 15270582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Visual perception and image display terminals.
    Kundel HL
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1986 Mar; 24(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 3961130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. On the work of the radiologist--separation of image capture from image display.
    Balter S
    Acta Radiol; 1988; 29(3):257-65. PubMed ID: 2968092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Application of AMBER in single- and dual-energy digital imaging: improvement in noise level and display dynamic range.
    de Rooij TP; Oestmann JW; Schultze Kool LJ; Vrooman HA; Prokop M; Schaefer CM
    Radiographics; 1994 Mar; 14(2):407-14. PubMed ID: 8190963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report.
    Samei E; Badano A; Chakraborty D; Compton K; Cornelius C; Corrigan K; Flynn MJ; Hemminger B; Hangiandreou N; Johnson J; Moxley-Stevens DM; Pavlicek W; Roehrig H; Rutz L; Shepard J; Uzenoff RA; Wang J; Willis CE;
    Med Phys; 2005 Apr; 32(4):1205-25. PubMed ID: 15895604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Free programmable image functions (windows) for computer tomography].
    Gell G; Sager WD; Tölly E
    Computertomographie; 1983 Mar; 3(1):11-3. PubMed ID: 6688758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The influence of modulation transfer function shape on computed tomographic image quality.
    Joseph PM; Stockham CD
    Radiology; 1982 Oct; 145(1):179-85. PubMed ID: 7122876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A psychophysical comparison of two methods for adaptive histogram equalization.
    Zimmerman JB; Cousins SB; Hartzell KM; Frisse ME; Kahn MG
    J Digit Imaging; 1989 May; 2(2):82-91. PubMed ID: 2488161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Detection of caries with conventional digital imaging and tuned aperture computed tomography using CRT monitor and laptop displays.
    Abreu M; Tyndall DA; Ludlow JB
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Aug; 88(2):234-8. PubMed ID: 10468469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Image enhancement of conventional transverse-axial tomograms.
    Strohbehn JW; Yates CH; Curran BH; Sternick ES
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1979 May; 26(5):253-62. PubMed ID: 447354
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Image processing. Where computers have had greatest medical impact.
    Batson E
    Postgrad Med; 1984 Aug; 76(2):73-6. PubMed ID: 6462976
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Relationship between sharpness and noise in CT images reconstructed with different kernels.
    Eldevik K; Nordhøy W; Skretting A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):430-3. PubMed ID: 20181647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fluoroscopic dose reduction using a digital television noise-reduction device.
    Ablow RC; Jaffe CC; Orphanoudakis SC; Markowitz RI; Rosenfield NS
    Radiology; 1983 Jul; 148(1):313-5. PubMed ID: 6682983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [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]  

  • 19. Stochastic resonance-based tomographic transform for computed tomographic image enhancement of brain lesions.
    Rallabandi VP; Roy PK
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2008; 32(6):966-74. PubMed ID: 19204462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Digital radiography using a computed tomography instrument in comparison with conventional film-screen images].
    Kalender WA; Hübener KH
    Rofo; 1984 Jan; 140(1):87-92. PubMed ID: 6420273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.