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

259 related items for PubMed ID: 26895467

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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]

  • 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. 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 21; 30(2):254-63. PubMed ID: 12607843
    [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. 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]

  • 9. A comparative analysis of OTF, NPS, and DQE in energy integrating and photon counting digital x-ray detectors.
    Acciavatti RJ, Maidment AD.
    Med Phys; 2010 Dec 07; 37(12):6480-95. PubMed ID: 21302803
    [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. Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems.
    Monnin P, Bosmans H, Verdun FR, Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2014 Oct 07; 59(19):5741-61. PubMed ID: 25198143
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 16. 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 07; 26(11):2273-85. PubMed ID: 10587208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. MTF and DQE enhancement using an apodized-aperture x-ray detector design.
    Nano TF, Escartin T, Ismailova E, Karim KS, Lindström J, Kim HK, Cunningham IA.
    Med Phys; 2017 Sep 07; 44(9):4525-4535. PubMed ID: 28636792
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 19. Performance of a high fill factor, indirect detection prototype flat-panel imager for mammography.
    El-Mohri Y, Antonuk LE, Zhao Q, Wang Y, Li Y, Du H, Sawant A.
    Med Phys; 2007 Jan 07; 34(1):315-27. PubMed ID: 17278517
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Three-dimensional linear system analysis for breast tomosynthesis.
    Zhao B, Zhao W.
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec 07; 35(12):5219-32. PubMed ID: 19175081
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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