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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9645256)

  • 1. [Comparison of film-screen combinations in contrast-detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 3: Trimodal histograms of gray scale distribution in bar groups of lead pattern images].
    Hagemann G; Eichbaum G; Stamm G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1998 May; 8(3):151-6. PubMed ID: 9645256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Comparison of film-screen combinations with contrast detail diagram and interactive image analysis. 2: Linear assessment of grey scale ranges with interactive image analysis].
    Stamm G; Eichbaum G; Hagemann G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Sep; 7(5):284-7. PubMed ID: 9410005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Comparison of film-screen combination in a contrast detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 1: Contrast detail diagram].
    Hagemann G; Eichbaum G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Jul; 7(4):212-5. PubMed ID: 9340021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Complex evaluation of film mammographic imaging systems. 2. Comparison of 18 systems using a signal-noise matrix].
    Friedrich M; Weskamp P
    Rofo; 1984 Jun; 140(6):707-16. PubMed ID: 6429790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging.
    De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Smeets P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):174-7. PubMed ID: 16461499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage.
    Tingberg A; Sjöström D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):286-93. PubMed ID: 15933123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. [The spatial resolution of the digital storage phosphor system. The monitor and film compared].
    Nessi R; Castellana L; Paruccini N; Blanc M; Uslenghi CM
    Radiol Med; 1995 Sep; 90(3):298-302. PubMed ID: 7501837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of the imaging characteristics of the new Kodak Hyper Speed G film with the current T-MAT G/RA film and the CR 9000 system.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Oct; 50(19):4541-52. PubMed ID: 16177488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Technique charts for Kodak EC-L film screen system for portal localization in a 6MV X-ray beam.
    Sandilos P; Antypas C; Paraskevopoulou C; Kouvaris J; Vlachos L
    Technol Health Care; 2006; 14(6):467-72. PubMed ID: 17148858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom.
    Dragusin O; Bosmans H; Pappas C; Desmet W
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(18):4927-40. PubMed ID: 18711249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Physical evaluation of prototype high-performance anti-scatter grids: potential for improved digital radiographic image quality.
    Fetterly KA; Schueler BA
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jan; 54(2):N37-42. PubMed ID: 19098352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Monte Carlo evaluation of noise and resolution properties of granular phosphor screens.
    Liaparinos PF; Kandarakis IS
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Feb; 54(4):859-74. PubMed ID: 19141882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [The parameters of image quality of a novel ultra high resolution film-screen system].
    Beutel J; Mickewich DJ; Issler SL; Shaw R
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1994 Jan; 4(1):19-22. PubMed ID: 8136386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Intensity distribution and impact of scatter for dual-source CT.
    Kyriakou Y; Kalender WA
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Dec; 52(23):6969-89. PubMed ID: 18029988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A quantitative image quality comparison of four different image guided radiotherapy devices.
    Stützel J; Oelfke U; Nill S
    Radiother Oncol; 2008 Jan; 86(1):20-4. PubMed ID: 18031854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A new method to assess the fluidodynamic behaviour of an angiographic contrast agent.
    Novario R; Tanzi F; Bianchi C; Lorusso R; Goddi A; Vermiglio G; Conte L
    Radiol Med; 2002 Apr; 103(4):396-406. PubMed ID: 12107390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Calibrating automatic exposure control devices for digital radiography.
    Doyle P; Martin CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5475-85. PubMed ID: 17047264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.