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

230 related items for PubMed ID: 16306665

  • 1. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images--comparison with subjective visual assessment.
    Pascoal A, Lawinski CP, Honey I, Blake P.
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec 07; 50(23):5743-57. PubMed ID: 16306665
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May 21; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Quality assurance (QA) procedures for software: evaluation of an ADC quality system.
    Efstathopoulos EP, Benekos O, Molfetas M, Charou E, Kottou S, Argentos S, Kelekis NL.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Mar 07; 117(1-3):291-7. PubMed ID: 16464840
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 11. Image-quality figure evaluator based on contrast-detail phantom in radiography.
    Wang CL, Wang CM, Chan YK, Chen RT.
    Int J Med Robot; 2012 Jun 07; 8(2):169-77. PubMed ID: 22213357
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment.
    Thijssen JM, Weijers G, de Korte CL.
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Mar 07; 33(3):460-71. PubMed ID: 17275983
    [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 07; 18(2):138-44. PubMed ID: 15827822
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems.
    Körner M, Treitl M, Schaetzing R, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser M, Wirth S.
    Invest Radiol; 2006 Jul 07; 41(7):593-9. PubMed ID: 16772853
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Assessment of three different software systems in the evaluation of dynamic MRI of the breast.
    Kurz KD, Steinhaus D, Klar V, Cohnen M, Wittsack HJ, Saleh A, Mödder U, Blondin D.
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Feb 07; 69(2):300-7. PubMed ID: 18060715
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Investigation of possible methods for equipment self-tests in digital radiology.
    Zoetelief J, Idris HH, Jansen JT.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Feb 07; 117(1-3):269-73. PubMed ID: 16461526
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Optimization of image quality and dose for Varian aS500 electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs).
    McGarry CK, Grattan MW, Cosgrove VP.
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Dec 07; 52(23):6865-77. PubMed ID: 18029980
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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