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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8519262)

  • 1. Phantom studies in osteoporosis.
    Fischer M; Kempers B
    Eur J Nucl Med; 1993 May; 20(5):434-9. PubMed ID: 8519262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A DXA Whole Body Composition Cross-Calibration Experience: Evaluation With Humans, Spine, and Whole Body Phantoms.
    Krueger D; Libber J; Sanfilippo J; Yu HJ; Horvath B; Miller CG; Binkley N
    J Clin Densitom; 2016; 19(2):220-5. PubMed ID: 26071169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [A calibration phantom system for QCT bone mineral density determination].
    Yan Q; Yan L; Yang DZ; San HB; Yan ZF
    Zhongguo Yi Liao Qi Xie Za Zhi; 2005 May; 29(3):173-6. PubMed ID: 16124621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry-based assessment of male patients using standardized bone density values and a national reference database.
    Goemaere S; Vanderschueren D; Kaufman JM; Reginster JY; Boutsen Y; Poriau S; Callens J; Raeman F; Depresseux G; Borghs H; Devogelaer JP; Boonen S; ;
    J Clin Densitom; 2007; 10(1):25-33. PubMed ID: 17289523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A generalized least significant change for individuals measured on different DXA systems.
    Shepherd JA; Lu Y
    J Clin Densitom; 2007; 10(3):249-58. PubMed ID: 17616413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results.
    Genant HK; Grampp S; Glüer CC; Faulkner KG; Jergas M; Engelke K; Hagiwara S; Van Kuijk C
    J Bone Miner Res; 1994 Oct; 9(10):1503-14. PubMed ID: 7817795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [The accuracy and reproducibility of the measurement of bone mineral content by single-photon absorptiometry (125I). The effect of source strength].
    Cattaneo GM; Rinaldi GP; Rubinacci A
    Radiol Med; 1992; 83(1-2):54-8. PubMed ID: 1557545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative evaluation of local and international reference databases for forearm densitometry: different impacts on diagnostic decisions.
    Mészáros S; Berko P; Genti G; Hosszú E; Keszthelyi B; Krasznai I; Teremi F; Vargha P; Horváth C
    J Clin Densitom; 2006; 9(4):445-53. PubMed ID: 17097531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Calibration and standardization of bone mineral densitometers.
    Kelly TL; Slovik DM; Neer RM
    J Bone Miner Res; 1989 Oct; 4(5):663-9. PubMed ID: 2816511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Calibration of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for bone density.
    Mazess RB; Trempe JA; Bisek JP; Hanson JA; Hans D
    J Bone Miner Res; 1991 Aug; 6(8):799-806. PubMed ID: 1785372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Manufacture and evaluation of a spine phantom used in the cross-calibration of DXA bone densitometry].
    Yang DZ; Shang JY; Song WZ; Chen J; Zhu D; Wang WZ
    Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao; 2003 Jun; 25(3):262-6. PubMed ID: 12905736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Comparable case finding percentages of osteoporosis despite diverging reasons for ordering bone densitometry by general practitioners and specialists].
    van der Poest Clement E; van Hartskamp J; Roos JC; de Vries JH; Lips P
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Jul; 146(29):1374-80. PubMed ID: 12162177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison and cross-calibration of DXA systems: ODX-240 and Sophos L-XRA versus Hologic QDR-4500, for spinal bone mineral measurement. Translation of a reference database.
    Benmalek A; Sabatier JP
    Osteoporos Int; 1998; 8(6):570-7. PubMed ID: 10326063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Quality control in bone densitometry].
    Kolta S; Roux C
    J Radiol; 1999 Feb; 80(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 10209705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [The quantitative determination of bone mineral content--a system comparison of similarly built computed tomographs].
    Andresen R; Radmer S; Banzer D; Felsenberg D; Wolf KJ
    Rofo; 1994 Mar; 160(3):260-5. PubMed ID: 8136480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pediatric in vivo cross-calibration between the GE Lunar Prodigy and DPX-L bone densitometers.
    Crabtree NJ; Shaw NJ; Boivin CM; Oldroyd B; Truscott JG
    Osteoporos Int; 2005 Dec; 16(12):2157-67. PubMed ID: 16234997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Validation of asynchronous quantitative bone densitometry of the spine: Accuracy, short-term reproducibility, and a comparison with conventional quantitative computed tomography.
    Wang L; Su Y; Wang Q; Duanmu Y; Yang M; Yi C; Cheng X
    Sci Rep; 2017 Jul; 7(1):6284. PubMed ID: 28740145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Bone mineral density measures in longitudinal studies: the choice of phantom is crucial for quality assessment. The Tromsø study, a population-based study.
    Emaus N; Berntsen GK; Joakimsen R; Fønnebø V
    Osteoporos Int; 2005 Dec; 16(12):1597-603. PubMed ID: 15886862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Factors affecting the precision of bone mineral measurements. Part 1: Review of experimentally derived results obtained from single photon absorptiometry.
    McDonald SP; Cormack J; Evill CA; Sage MR
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1990 Mar; 13(1):18-24. PubMed ID: 2337398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bone mineral density evaluation in osteoporosis: why yes and why not?
    Celi M; Rao C; Scialdoni A; Tempesta V; Gasbarra E; Pistillo P; Tarantino U
    Aging Clin Exp Res; 2013 Oct; 25 Suppl 1():S47-9. PubMed ID: 24046042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.