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

185 related items for PubMed ID: 18383665

  • 1. Physical characteristics of GE Senographe Essential and DS digital mammography detectors.
    Ghetti C, Borrini A, Ortenzia O, Rossi R, Ordóñez PL.
    Med Phys; 2008 Feb; 35(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 18383665
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Study of DQE dependence with beam quality on GE essential mammography flat panel.
    García-Mollá R, Linares R, Ayala R.
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2010 Nov 25; 12(1):3176. PubMed ID: 21330969
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
    Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep 21; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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]

  • 5. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
    Lazzari B, Belli G, Gori C, Rosselli Del Turco M.
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul 21; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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]

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

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 15. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype.
    Vedantham S, Karellas A, Suryanarayanan S, Albagli D, Han S, Tkaczyk EJ, Landberg CE, Opsahl-Ong B, Granfors PR, Levis I, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE.
    Med Phys; 2000 Mar 21; 27(3):558-67. PubMed ID: 10757607
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography.
    Urbanczyk H, McDonagh E, Marshall NW, Castellano I.
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr 07; 57(7):1987-2003. PubMed ID: 22429938
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR.
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar 07; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 19. Physical characterization of a high-resolution CCD detector for mammography.
    Elbakri IA, Tesic MM, Xiong Q.
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Apr 21; 52(8):2171-83. PubMed ID: 17404462
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.