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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7935207)

  • 21. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
    Boyce SJ; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Detective quantum efficiency dependence on x-ray energy weighting in mammography.
    Cahn RN; Cederström B; Danielsson M; Hall A; Lundqvist M; Nygren D
    Med Phys; 1999 Dec; 26(12):2680-3. PubMed ID: 10619253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Technical Note: Impact on detective quantum efficiency of edge angle determination method by International Electrotechnical Commission methodology for cardiac x-ray image detectors.
    Gislason-Lee AJ; Tunstall CM; Kengyelics SK; Cowen AR; Davies AG
    Med Phys; 2015 Aug; 42(8):4423-7. PubMed ID: 26233172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Noise power spectra of images from digital mammography detectors.
    Williams MB; Mangiafico PA; Simoni PU
    Med Phys; 1999 Jul; 26(7):1279-93. PubMed ID: 10435530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Nonstationary model of oblique x-ray incidence in amorphous selenium detectors: II. Transfer functions.
    Acciavatti RJ; Maidment ADA
    Med Phys; 2019 Feb; 46(2):505-516. PubMed ID: 30488455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A detective quantum efficiency for spectroscopic X-ray imaging detectors.
    Tanguay J; Richtsmeier D; Dydula C; Day JA; Iniewski K; Bazalova-Carter M
    Med Phys; 2021 Nov; 48(11):6781-6799. PubMed ID: 34460950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A comparison of x-ray detectors for mouse CT imaging.
    Goertzen AL; Nagarkar V; Street RA; Paulus MJ; Boone JM; Cherry SR
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5251-65. PubMed ID: 15656275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Monte Carlo simulations of the imaging performance of metal plate/phosphor screens used in radiotherapy.
    Kausch C; Schreiber B; Kreuder F; Schmidt R; Dössel O
    Med Phys; 1999 Oct; 26(10):2113-24. PubMed ID: 10535628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Signal and noise transfer properties of photoelectric interactions in diagnostic x-ray imaging detectors.
    Hajdok G; Yao J; Battista JJ; Cunningham IA
    Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3601-20. PubMed ID: 17089826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Study of a prototype high quantum efficiency thick scintillation crystal video-electronic portal imaging device.
    Samant SS; Gopal A
    Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2783-91. PubMed ID: 16964854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Characterization of a mammographic system based on single photon counting pixel arrays coupled to GaAs x-ray detectors.
    Amendolia SR; Bisogni MG; Delogu P; Fantacci ME; Paternoster G; Rosso V; Stefanini A
    Med Phys; 2009 Apr; 36(4):1330-9. PubMed ID: 19472640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Physical and psychophysical characterization of a novel clinical system for digital mammography.
    Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Bertolini M; Borasi G; Golinelli P; Acchiappati D; Gallo E
    Med Phys; 2009 Nov; 36(11):5139-48. PubMed ID: 19994524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Monte Carlo study on the imaging performance of powder Lu2SiO5:Ce phosphor screens under x-ray excitation: comparison with Gd2O2S:Tb screens.
    Liaparinos PF; Kandarakis IS; Cavouras DA; Delis HB; Panayiotakis GS
    Med Phys; 2007 May; 34(5):1724-33. PubMed ID: 17555254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Guntern D; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2007 Mar; 34(3):906-14. PubMed ID: 17441236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Direct conversion detectors: the effect of incomplete charge collection on detective quantum efficiency.
    Mainprize JG; Hunt DC; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2002 Jun; 29(6):976-90. PubMed ID: 12094993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Charge-coupled device detector: performance considerations and potential for small-field mammographic imaging applications.
    Karellas A; Harris LJ; Liu H; Davis MA; D'Orsi CJ
    Med Phys; 1992; 19(4):1015-23. PubMed ID: 1518463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Analysis of signal propagation in optically coupled detectors for digital mammography: II. Lens and fibre optics.
    Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ
    Phys Med Biol; 1996 Mar; 41(3):475-93. PubMed ID: 8778827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Monte Carlo performance on the x-ray converter thickness in digital mammography using software breast models.
    Liaparinos P; Bliznakova K
    Med Phys; 2012 Nov; 39(11):6638-51. PubMed ID: 23127058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Signal-to-noise ratio and detective quantum efficiency analysis of optically coupled CCD mammography imaging systems.
    Liu H; Fajardo LL; Penny BC
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Oct; 3(10):799-805. PubMed ID: 8923898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.