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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9695767)

  • 21. Effective scatterer diameter estimates for broad scatterer size distributions.
    Nordberg EP; Hall TJ
    Ultrason Imaging; 2015 Jan; 37(1):3-21. PubMed ID: 24831300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Potential of microbubbles for use as point targets in phase aberration correction.
    Psychoudakis D; Fowlkes JB; Volakis JL; Carson PL
    IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Dec; 51(12):1639-48. PubMed ID: 15690724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Contrast agent stability: a continuous B-mode imaging approach.
    Sboros V; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2001 Oct; 27(10):1367-77. PubMed ID: 11731050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Investigation of the effects of microbubble shell disruption on population scattering and implications for modeling contrast agent behavior.
    Chien CT; Burns PN
    IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Mar; 51(3):286-92. PubMed ID: 15128215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Ultrasound properties of liver with and without particulate contrast agents.
    Tuthill TA; Baggs RB; Violante MR; Parker KJ
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 1991; 17(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 1887508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Surface modes and acoustic scattering of microspheres and ultrasound contrast agents.
    Falou O; Jafari Sojahrood A; Kumaradas JC; Kolios MC
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Sep; 132(3):1820-9. PubMed ID: 22978909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Unbinding of targeted ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles by secondary acoustic forces.
    Garbin V; Overvelde M; Dollet B; de Jong N; Lohse D; Versluis M
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Oct; 56(19):6161-77. PubMed ID: 21878709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Understanding the limitations of ultrasonic backscatter measurements from microbubble populations.
    Sboros V; Ramnarine KV; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Phys Med Biol; 2002 Dec; 47(23):4287-99. PubMed ID: 12502050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of bubble size on ultrasound backscatter from bubble clouds in the context of gas kick detection in boreholes.
    Indimath S; Fiorentini S; Bøklepp BR; Avdal J; Johansen TF; Måsøy SE
    Sci Rep; 2023 Jul; 13(1):11825. PubMed ID: 37479836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Interaction of an ultrasound-activated contrast microbubble with a wall at arbitrary separation distances.
    Doinikov AA; Bouakaz A
    Phys Med Biol; 2015 Oct; 60(20):7909-25. PubMed ID: 26407104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The high-frequency backscattering angular response of gassy sediments: model/data comparison from the Eel River Margin, California.
    Fonseca L; Mayer L; Orange D; Driscoll N
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2002 Jun; 111(6):2621-31. PubMed ID: 12083194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Droplets, Bubbles and Ultrasound Interactions.
    Shpak O; Verweij M; de Jong N; Versluis M
    Adv Exp Med Biol; 2016; 880():157-74. PubMed ID: 26486337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Parametric ultrasound imaging from backscatter coefficient measurements: image formation and interpretation.
    Insana MF; Hall TJ
    Ultrason Imaging; 1990 Oct; 12(4):245-67. PubMed ID: 1701584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Theoretical estimation of the temperature dependence of backscattered ultrasonic power for noninvasive thermometry.
    Straube WL; Arthur RM
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 1994; 20(9):915-22. PubMed ID: 7886851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The dependence of ultrasound contrast agents backscatter on acoustic pressure: theory versus experiment.
    Sboros V; MacDonald CA; Pye SD; Moran CM; Gomatam J; McDicken WN
    Ultrasonics; 2002 May; 40(1-8):579-83. PubMed ID: 12160005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The fabrication of novel nanobubble ultrasound contrast agent for potential tumor imaging.
    Xing Z; Wang J; Ke H; Zhao B; Yue X; Dai Z; Liu J
    Nanotechnology; 2010 Apr; 21(14):145607. PubMed ID: 20220227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Shell waves and acoustic scattering from ultrasound contrast agents.
    Allen JS; Kruse DE; Ferrara KW
    IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2001 Mar; 48(2):409-18. PubMed ID: 11370354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Consistency in statistical moments as a test for bubble cloud clustering.
    Weber TC; Lyons AP; Bradley DL
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Nov; 130(5):3396-405. PubMed ID: 22088013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. An in vitro study of a microbubble contrast agent using a clinical ultrasound imaging system.
    Sboros V; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Jan; 49(1):159-73. PubMed ID: 14971779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Optimization of acoustic scattering from dual-frequency driven microbubbles at the difference frequency.
    Wyczalkowski M; Szeri AJ
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2003 Jun; 113(6):3073-9. PubMed ID: 12822779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.