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 *

61 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9849594)

  • 21. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
    Klausz R; Shramchenko N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Management of pediatric radiation dose using GE's Revolution digital radiography systems.
    Jabri KN; Uppaluri R; Xue P
    Pediatr Radiol; 2004 Oct; 34 Suppl 3():S215-20; discussion S234-41. PubMed ID: 15558264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
    Zdesar U
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Investigation of possible methods for equipment self-tests in digital radiology.
    Zoetelief J; Idris HH; Jansen JT
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):269-73. PubMed ID: 16461526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
    Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Noninvasive imaging of the coronary arteries using a 64-row multidetector CT scanner: initial clinical experience and radiation dose concerns.
    Francone M; Napoli A; Carbone I; Cavacece M; Nardis PG; Lanciotti K; Visconti S; Bertoletti L; Di Castro E; Catalano C; Passariello R
    Radiol Med; 2007 Feb; 112(1):31-46. PubMed ID: 17310293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation.
    Busch HP; Faulkner K
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):143-7. PubMed ID: 16461521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. [Reduction of patient exposure by the use of digital luminescence radiography].
    Seifert H; Chapot C
    J Radiol; 1999 Nov; 80(11):1555-60. PubMed ID: 10592912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Dose performance and image quality: dual source CT versus single source CT in cardiac CT angiography.
    Wang M; Qi HT; Wang XM; Wang T; Chen JH; Liu C
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Dec; 72(3):396-400. PubMed ID: 18835119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Comparison of input grey values and contrast profiles: a contribution to the discussion on optimization of evaluation parameters in storage phosphorus radiography].
    Schätzl M; Fink U
    Rofo; 1995 Feb; 162(2):157-62. PubMed ID: 7881084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Exposure creep in computed radiography: a longitudinal study.
    Gibson DJ; Davidson RA
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Apr; 19(4):458-62. PubMed ID: 22225727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.
    Tsalafoutas IA; AlKhazzam S; Tsapaki V; Kharita MH
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2024 Apr; 25(4):e14285. PubMed ID: 38317593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical application of the optimized X-ray parameter model through analysis of disease risk and image quality when combining the ion chamber of automatic exposure control of digital radiography.
    Hwang JH; Kim SB; Choi MK; Lee KB; Park CK
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2022; 30(6):1099-1114. PubMed ID: 36120755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Detail recognition in the x-ray picture and the limits of possible reduction in radiation dosage].
    Gurwitsch AM
    Rofo; 1988 Apr; 148(4):444-7. PubMed ID: 2834794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Application of StatPhantom software for image quality evaluation.
    Davydenko G; Gurvich V; Smekhov M
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():219-20. PubMed ID: 12105733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Exposure tracking with digital radiography: how dose conscientious are you?
    Bell-Pfeifer A
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(5):576-7. PubMed ID: 24806060
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Technical evaluation of a clinical, bi-planar, digital and upright X-ray imaging unit.
    Kelly C; Delakis I
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2021 Dec; 68(4):475-481. PubMed ID: 34096199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Response to the article "Comparison of the performance of intraoral X-ray sensors using objective image quality assessment".
    Hellén-Halme K; Johansson C; Nilsson M
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 Dec; 122(6):784-785. PubMed ID: 27720654
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Optimising default radiographic exposure factors using Deviation Index.
    Creeden A; Curtis M
    Radiography (Lond); 2020 Nov; 26(4):308-313. PubMed ID: 32199801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Quantitative Analysis Methods Using Histogram and Entropy for Detector Performance Evaluation According to the Sensitivity Change of the Automatic Exposure Control in Digital Radiography.
    Hwang JH; Lee KB; Choi JA; Lee TS
    J Med Syst; 2020 Sep; 44(10):183. PubMed ID: 32886270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.