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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9167162)

  • 1. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images.
    Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ; Lawton DT
    Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):709-23. PubMed ID: 9167162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images.
    Chakraborty DP; Eckert MP
    Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 7565344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Subjective evaluations of mammographic accreditation phantom images by three observer groups.
    Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ
    Invest Radiol; 1994 Jan; 29(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 8144336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Computerized quantitative evaluation of mammographic accreditation phantom images.
    Lee Y; Tsai DY; Shinohara N
    Med Phys; 2010 Dec; 37(12):6323-31. PubMed ID: 21302789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
    Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. CT head-scan dosimetry in an anthropomorphic phantom and associated measurement of ACR accreditation-phantom imaging metrics under clinically representative scan conditions.
    Brunner CC; Stern SH; Minniti R; Parry MI; Skopec M; Chakrabarti K
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081917. PubMed ID: 23927331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
    Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
    Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantitative mammography contrast threshold test tool.
    Wagner AJ; Frey GD
    Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 7565343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
    Alvarez M; Pina DR; Miranda JR; Duarte SB
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Observer performance of PACS-oriented digitized mammography in the detection of fibrils, microcalcifications, and masses: a phantom study].
    Yamada S; Ueguchi T; Mihara N; Matsuzawa H; Sukenobu Y; Komizu M
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 May; 65(5):620-5. PubMed ID: 19498251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations.
    McLean D; Eckert M; Heard R; Chan W
    Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of mammography quality in Istanbul.
    Gürdemir B; Arıbal E
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2012; 18(5):468-72. PubMed ID: 22801869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Automated daily quality control analysis for mammography in a multi-unit imaging center.
    Sundell VM; Mäkelä T; Meaney A; Kaasalainen T; Savolainen S
    Acta Radiol; 2019 Feb; 60(2):140-148. PubMed ID: 29768928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
    Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessment of Low-Contrast Resolution for the American College of Radiology Computed Tomographic Accreditation Program: What Is the Impact of Iterative Reconstruction?
    Kofler JM; Yu L; Leng S; Zhang Y; Li Z; Carter RE; McCollough CH
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2015; 39(4):619-23. PubMed ID: 25853774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Computerized scheme for evaluating mammographic phantom images.
    Asahara M; Kodera Y
    Med Phys; 2012 Mar; 39(3):1609-17. PubMed ID: 22380393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images.
    Chakraborty DP
    Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Automated Quantitative Analysis of American College of Radiology PET Phantom Images.
    DiFilippo FP; Patel M; Patel S
    J Nucl Med Technol; 2019 Sep; 47(3):249-254. PubMed ID: 31019038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.