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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9399169)

  • 1. A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems.
    Wang J; Langer S
    J Digit Imaging; 1997 Nov; 10(4):158-68. PubMed ID: 9399169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Proposal of a quality-index or metric for soft copy display systems: contrast sensitivity study.
    Wang J; Compton K; Peng Q
    J Digit Imaging; 2003 Jun; 16(2):185-202. PubMed ID: 12964056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. SoftCopy Display Quality Assurance Program at Texas Children's Hospital.
    Ly CK
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():33-40. PubMed ID: 12105695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Assessment of PACS display systems.
    Aldrich JE; Rutledge JD
    J Digit Imaging; 2005 Dec; 18(4):287-95. PubMed ID: 16094505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessment of flat panel LCD primary class display performance based on AAPM TG 18 acceptance protocol.
    Jung H; Kim HJ; Kang WS; Yoo SK; Fujioka K; Hasegawa M; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2155-64. PubMed ID: 15305470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimization of reading conditions for flat panel displays.
    Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek RV; Maslennikov A; Mitchell CA; Romanyukha A
    J Digit Imaging; 2006 Jun; 19(2):181-7. PubMed ID: 16437286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A practical approach to soft-copy display consistency for PC-based review workstations.
    Jervis SE; Brettle DS
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Sep; 76(909):648-52. PubMed ID: 14500280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations.
    Thompson DP; Koller CJ; Eatough JP
    Br J Radiol; 2007 Apr; 80(952):256-60. PubMed ID: 17038407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of full-field digital mammography workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication system in image quality and diagnostic performance.
    Kang BJ; Kim SH; Choi BG
    Clin Imaging; 2011; 35(5):336-40. PubMed ID: 21872121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. PACS workstation design.
    Ho BK; Ratib O; Horii SC
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 1991; 15(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 1913562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Natural display mode for digital DICOM-conformant diagnostic imaging.
    Peters KR; Ramsby GR
    Acad Radiol; 2002 Sep; 9(9):1025-35. PubMed ID: 12238544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Variations in performance of LCDs are still evident after DICOM gray-scale standard display calibration.
    Lowe JM; Brennan PC; Evanoff MG; McEntee MF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Jul; 195(1):181-7. PubMed ID: 20566814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Soft-copy display and reading: what the radiologist should know in the digital era.
    Sorantin E
    Pediatr Radiol; 2008 Dec; 38(12):1276-84. PubMed ID: 18548242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An interactive method of assessing the characteristics of softcopy display using observer performance tests.
    Wang J; Peng Q
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():216-8. PubMed ID: 12105732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated medical grade monitor vs a DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) monitor for viewing 8-bit dental images.
    McIlgorm DJ; McNulty JP
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(3):20140148. PubMed ID: 25421807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Could standardizing "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) monitors to the DICOM part 14: GSDF improve the presentation of dental images? A visual grading characteristics analysis.
    McIlgorm DJ; Lawinski C; Ng S; McNulty JP
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(9):20130121. PubMed ID: 23990526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Why and how is soft copy reading possible in clinical practice?
    Mertelmeier T
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 Feb; 12(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 10036662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting.
    Wade C; Brennan PC
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Jun; 77(918):465-71. PubMed ID: 15151966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices.
    Flynn MJ; Badano A
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 May; 12(2):50-9. PubMed ID: 10342247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.