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

171 related items for PubMed ID: 23257608

  • 1. 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]

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

  • 3. On the dose sensitivity of a new CDMAM phantom.
    Figl M, Semturs F, Kaar M, Hoffmann R, Floor-Westerdijk M, van der Burght R, Homolka P, Hummel J.
    Phys Med Biol; 2015 May 07; 60(9):N177-85. PubMed ID: 25879177
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
    Thomas JA, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek R, Romanyukha A.
    Med Phys; 2005 Mar 07; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 7. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
    Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Scalzetti EM, Dance DR.
    Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul 07; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 9. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
    Sommer A, Schopphoven S, Land I, Blaser D, Sobczak T, Deutsche Referenzzentren für Mammographie Version 2.0.
    Rofo; 2014 May 07; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

  • 11. A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography.
    de las Heras H, Schöfer F, Tiller B, Chevalier M, Zwettler G, Semturs F.
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Apr 21; 58(8):L17-30. PubMed ID: 23528479
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations.
    McLean D, Eckert M, Heard R, Chan W.
    Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov 21; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
    Bloomquist AK, Mainprize JG, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ.
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar 21; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 18. 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 Mar 21; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
    Alvarez M, Pina DR, Miranda JR, Duarte SB.
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov 07; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.