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

248 related items for PubMed ID: 24089918

  • 21. Quantitative image quality measurements of a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
    Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D.
    Rofo; 2013 Dec; 185(12):1188-94. PubMed ID: 23888475
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. CHARACTERISING THE EOS SLOT-SCANNING SYSTEM WITH THE EFFECTIVE DETECTIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY.
    Clavel AH, Monnin P, Létang JM, Verdun FR, Darbon A.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2016 Jun; 169(1-4):319-24. PubMed ID: 26538617
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Evaluation of clinical full field digital mammography with the task specific system-model-based Fourier Hotelling observer (SMFHO) SNR.
    Liu H, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek RV, Benevides L, Gu S, Kyprianou IS.
    Med Phys; 2014 May; 41(5):051907. PubMed ID: 24784386
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Performance evaluation of a retrofit digital detector-based mammography system.
    Marshall NW, van Ongeval C, Bosmans H.
    Phys Med; 2016 Feb; 32(2):312-22. PubMed ID: 26803225
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. A comprehensive model for quantum noise characterization in digital mammography.
    Monnin P, Bosmans H, Verdun FR, Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2016 Mar 07; 61(5):2083-108. PubMed ID: 26895467
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. 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]

  • 27. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
    Marshall NW, Monnin P, Bosmans H, Bochud FO, Verdun FR.
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul 21; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
    Mackenzie A, Dance DR, Workman A, Yip M, Wells K, Young KC.
    Med Phys; 2012 May 21; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
    Di Maria S, Baptista M, Felix M, Oliveira N, Matela N, Janeiro L, Vaz P, Orvalho L, Silva A.
    Phys Med; 2014 Jun 21; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Detector or system? Extending the concept of detective quantum efficiency to characterize the performance of digital radiographic imaging systems.
    Samei E, Ranger NT, MacKenzie A, Honey ID, Dobbins JT, Ravin CE.
    Radiology; 2008 Dec 21; 249(3):926-37. PubMed ID: 19011189
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems.
    Marshall NW, Bosmans H.
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov 21; 57(22):7629-50. PubMed ID: 23123601
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. High-resolution imager for digital mammography: physical characterization of a prototype sensor.
    Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Onishi SK.
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Sep 07; 50(17):3957-69. PubMed ID: 16177523
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. 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]

  • 35. Quantitative analysis of effects of the grid specifications on the quality of digital radiography images.
    Lee S, Chung W.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2019 Jun 07; 42(2):553-561. PubMed ID: 30989596
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM.
    Al Khalifah K, Davidson R, Zhou A.
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2020 Mar 07; 13(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 31749130
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Imaging performance of amorphous selenium based flat-panel detectors for digital mammography: characterization of a small area prototype detector.
    Zhao W, Ji WG, Debrie A, Rowlands JA.
    Med Phys; 2003 Feb 07; 30(2):254-63. PubMed ID: 12607843
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Characterization of scatter in digital mammography from physical measurements.
    Leon SM, Brateman LF, Wagner LK.
    Med Phys; 2014 Jun 07; 41(6):061901. PubMed ID: 24877812
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. A study of the impact of x-ray tube performance on angiography system imaging efficiency.
    Dehairs M, Bosmans H, Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2020 Nov 24; 65(22):225028. PubMed ID: 33231200
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a developmental detector for digital mammography.
    Williams MB, Simoni PU, Smilowitz L, Stanton M, Phillips W, Stewart A.
    Med Phys; 1999 Nov 24; 26(11):2273-85. PubMed ID: 10587208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 13.