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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7881886)

  • 1. Update on the recommended viewing protocol for FAXIL threshold contrast detail detectability test objects used in television fluoroscopy.
    Launders JH; McArdle S; Workman A; Cowen AR
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Jan; 68(805):70-7. PubMed ID: 7881886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of a quality index in threshold contrast detail detection measurements in television fluoroscopy.
    Gallacher DJ; Mackenzie A; Batchelor S; Lynch J; Saunders JE
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):464-72. PubMed ID: 12857706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Threshold contrast detail detectability measurement of the fluoroscopic image quality of a dynamic solid-state digital x-ray image detector.
    Davies AG; Cowen AR; Kengyelics SM; Bury RF; Bruijns TJ
    Med Phys; 2001 Jan; 28(1):11-5. PubMed ID: 11213916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Performance assessment of X-ray image intensified television fluoroscopy systems in New Zealand.
    Poletti JL; Le Heron JC
    Br J Radiol; 1988 May; 61(725):393-400. PubMed ID: 3382870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A set of X-ray test objects for quality control in television fluoroscopy.
    Hay GA; Clarke OF; Coleman NJ; Cowen AR
    Br J Radiol; 1985 Apr; 58(688):335-44. PubMed ID: 4063676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A novel quantitative measure of image quality in fluoroscopy.
    Kenny P; Costello D; McCarthy D; Kenny E
    Phys Med; 2020 Mar; 71():150-160. PubMed ID: 32146285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimization of variable temporal averaging in digital fluoroscopy.
    Kotre CJ; Guibelalde E
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Aug; 77(920):675-8. PubMed ID: 15326047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Nationwide survey of fluoroscopy: radiation dose and image quality.
    Suleiman OH; Conway BJ; Quinn P; Antonsen RG; Rueter FG; Slayton RJ; Spelic DC
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):471-6. PubMed ID: 9114107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Theoretical and experimental studies of the influence of air kerma rate on threshold contrast in diagnostic fluoroscopy systems.
    Harrison RM; Day MJ
    Phys Med Biol; 1983 Nov; 28(11):1319-31. PubMed ID: 6657744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An investigation into the effects of suboptimal viewing conditions in screen-film mammography.
    Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 2008 Mar; 81(963):219-31. PubMed ID: 18270296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quality control measurements for fluoroscopy systems in eight countries participating in the SENTINEL EU coordination action.
    Zoetelief J; Schultz FW; Kottou S; Gray L; O'Connor U; Salat D; Kepler K; Kaplanis P; Jankowski J; Schreiner A; Vassileva J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):237-43. PubMed ID: 18310607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
    Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A set of X-ray test objects for image quality control in digital subtraction fluorography. II: Application and interpretation of results.
    Cowen AR; Workman A; Haywood JM; Clarke OF
    Br J Radiol; 1987 Oct; 60(718):1011-8. PubMed ID: 3315091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fluoroscopic image quality in the film and filmless eras: a standardized comparison performed in coronary interventional facilities.
    Laskey W; Wondrow M; Chambers C
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2003 Mar; 58(3):383-90. PubMed ID: 12594708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An alternative approach to contrast-detail testing of X-ray image intensifier systems.
    Kotre CJ; Marshall NW; Faulkner K
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Aug; 65(776):686-90. PubMed ID: 1393395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.