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

1724 related items for PubMed ID: 19590115

  • 1. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug 07; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [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.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. Calibrating automatic exposure control devices for digital radiography.
    Doyle P, Martin CJ.
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov 07; 51(21):5475-85. PubMed ID: 17047264
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. NPWE model observer as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis of digital detectors in general radiography.
    Van Peteghem N, Bosmans H, Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2016 Nov 07; 61(21):N575-N591. PubMed ID: 27754987
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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]

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

  • 10. Quality assurance of computed and digital radiography systems.
    Walsh C, Gorman D, Byrne P, Larkin A, Dowling A, Malone JF.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008 Apr 07; 129(1-3):271-5. PubMed ID: 18319281
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
    Ducote JL, Xu T, Molloi S.
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan 07; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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]

  • 13. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov 07; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The application of image quality measurements for digital angiography.
    Peterzol A, Padovani R, Quai E, Vano E, Prieto C, Aviles P.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Nov 07; 117(1-3):38-43. PubMed ID: 16461533
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
    Marshall NW, Lemmens K, Bosmans H.
    Med Phys; 2012 Feb 07; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 19. Development and application of programs to measure modulation transfer function, noise power spectrum and detective quantum efficiency.
    Padgett R, Kotre CJ.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Feb 07; 117(1-3):283-7. PubMed ID: 16461517
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 87.