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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9735464)

  • 1. Quantitative evaluation of overall electronic display quality.
    Hangiandreou NJ; Fetterly KA; Bernatz SN; Cesar LJ; Groth DS; Felmlee JP
    J Digit Imaging; 1998 Aug; 11(3 Suppl 1):180-6. PubMed ID: 9735464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimization of a contrast-detail-based method for electronic image display quality evaluation.
    Hangiandreou NJ; Fetterly KA; Felmlee JP
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 May; 12(2):60-7. PubMed ID: 10342248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Medicolegal--malpractice and ethical issues in radiology. Must all monitors meet DICOM standards?
    Berlin L
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):W492. PubMed ID: 25794101
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems: first experiences within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
    Thierens H; Bosmans H; Buls N; Bacher K; De Hauwere A; Jacobs J; Clerinx P
    JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 17696080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Digital image integrity and RIGOUR.
    Cidlowski JA; Haworth M
    Mol Endocrinol; 2008 Feb; 22(2):225. PubMed ID: 18223150
    [No 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. DICOM gray-scale standard display function: clinical diagnostic accuracy of chest radiography in medical-grade gray-scale and consumer-grade color displays.
    Salazar AJ; Aguirre DA; Ocampo J; Camacho JC; Díaz XA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jun; 202(6):1272-80. PubMed ID: 24848825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A clinical evaluation of the image quality computer program, CoCIQ.
    Norrman E; Gårdestig M; Persliden J; Geijer H
    J Digit Imaging; 2005 Jun; 18(2):138-44. PubMed ID: 15827822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Experimental study of magnetic field influence on transitory instability of display image].
    Vishnevskiĭ AM; Kaliada TV; Sokolov GV; Razletova AB
    Med Tr Prom Ekol; 2004; (12):21-3. PubMed ID: 15773380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A pilot study of eye movement during mammography interpretation: eyetracker results and workstation design implications.
    Beard DV; Bream P; Pisano ED; Conroy P; Johnston RE; Braeuning P; McLelland R; Clark R
    J Digit Imaging; 1997 Feb; 10(1):14-20. PubMed ID: 9147523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. TB or Not TB: interreader and intrareader variability in screening diagnosis on an iPad versus a traditional display.
    Abboud S; Weiss F; Siegel E; Jeudy J
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2013 Jan; 10(1):42-4. PubMed ID: 23290673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Clinical application of a modern high-definition head-mounted display in sonography.
    Takeshita H; Kihara K; Yoshida S; Higuchi S; Ito M; Nakanishi Y; Kijima T; Ishioka J; Matsuoka Y; Numao N; Saito K; Fujii Y
    J Ultrasound Med; 2014 Aug; 33(8):1499-504. PubMed ID: 25063416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital image analysis: a reliable tool in the quantitative evaluation of cutaneous lesions and beyond.
    Pressley ZM; Foster JK; Kolm P; Zhao L; Warren F; Weintraub W; Sumpio BE; Chen SC
    Arch Dermatol; 2007 Oct; 143(10):1331-3. PubMed ID: 17938354
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A procedure to determine the individually comfortable position of visual displays relative to the eyes.
    Jaschinski W; Heuer H; Kylian H
    Ergonomics; 1999 Apr; 42(4):535-49. PubMed ID: 10204419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.