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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

232 related items for PubMed ID: 15839353

  • 1. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
    Thomas JA, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek R, Romanyukha A.
    Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography.
    Veldkamp WJ, Thijssen MA, Karssemeijer N.
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1712-8. PubMed ID: 12906188
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Investigation of the performance of digital mammographic X-ray equipment: determination of noise equivalent quanta (NEQQC) and detective quantum efficiency (DQEQC) compared with the automated analysis of CDMAM test images with CDCOM and CDIC programs.
    Loos C, Buhr H, Blendl C.
    Rofo; 2013 Jul; 185(7):635-43. PubMed ID: 23801376
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
    Gennaro G, Ferro F, Contento G, Fornasin F, di Maggio C.
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar 07; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
    Monnin P, Marshall NW, Bosmans H, Bochud FO, Verdun FR.
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul 21; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
    Gagne RM, Gallas BD, Myers KJ.
    Med Phys; 2006 Jan 21; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Validation of a digital mammographic unit model for an objective and highly automated clinical image quality assessment.
    Perez-Ponce H, Daul C, Wolf D, Noel A.
    Med Eng Phys; 2013 Aug 21; 35(8):1089-96; discussion 1089. PubMed ID: 23207102
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Dose sensitivity of three phantoms used for quality assurance in digital mammography.
    Figl M, Semturs F, Kaar M, Hoffmann R, Kaldarar H, Homolka P, Mostbeck G, Scholz B, Hummel J.
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Jan 21; 58(2):N13-23. PubMed ID: 23257608
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
    Segui JA, Zhao W.
    Med Phys; 2006 Oct 21; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Quantification of image quality using information theory.
    Niimi T, Maeda H, Ikeda M, Imai K.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2011 Dec 21; 34(4):481-8. PubMed ID: 22083504
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
    Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Danielli C, Angelini L, Maggi S.
    Med Phys; 2006 Nov 21; 33(11):4198-209. PubMed ID: 17153399
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K, Smeets P, De Hauwere A, Voet T, Duyck P, Verstraete K, Thierens H.
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun 21; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
    Mayo P, Rodenas F, Verdú G, Campayo JM, Villaescusa JI.
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008 Jun 21; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 12.