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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10196722)

  • 1. Comparison between a screen-film system and a selenium radiography system. An ROC study using simulated thoracic lesions.
    Kotter E; Einert A; Merz C; Allmann KH; Altehoefer C; Ghanem N; Langer M
    Invest Radiol; 1999 Apr; 34(4):296-302. PubMed ID: 10196722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions.
    Schaefer-Prokop CM; Prokop M; Schmidt A; Neitzel U; Galanski M
    Radiology; 1996 Oct; 201(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 8816519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
    Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Phantom study of chest radiography with storage phosphor, selenium, and film-screen systems.
    Kehler M; Lyttkens K; Andersson B; Hochbergs P; Lindberg CG; Medin J; Nordström AJ; Sanfridsson J; Vojciechowski J
    Acta Radiol; 1996 May; 37(3 Pt 1):332-6. PubMed ID: 8845264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Experimental evaluation of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for the pediatric chest: comparison with storage phosphor radiography at different exposures by using a chest phantom.
    Rapp-Bernhardt U; Bernhardt TM; Lenzen H; Esseling R; Roehl FW; Schiborr M; Theobald-Hormann I; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):485-91. PubMed ID: 16170012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography for detection of simulated nodules and interstitial disease in a chest phantom.
    Kroft LJ; Geleijns J; Mertens BJ; Veldkamp WJ; Zonderland HM; de Roos A
    Radiology; 2004 Apr; 231(1):156-63. PubMed ID: 14990807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
    Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Computed radiography and direct radiography: influence of acquisition dose on the detection of simulated lung lesions.
    Uffmann M; Prokop M; Eisenhuber E; Fuchsjäger M; Weber M; Schaefer-Prokop C
    Invest Radiol; 2005 May; 40(5):249-56. PubMed ID: 15829821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose: comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon.
    Strotzer M; Gmeinwieser JK; Völk M; Fründ R; Seitz J; Feuerbach S
    Invest Radiol; 1998 Feb; 33(2):98-103. PubMed ID: 9493725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Detection of simulated chest lesions: comparison of a conventional screen-film combination, an asymmetric screen-film system, and storage phosphor radiography.
    Leppert AG; Prokop M; Schaefer-Prokop CM; Galanski M
    Radiology; 1995 Apr; 195(1):259-63. PubMed ID: 7892482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Detection of CT-proved pulmonary nodules: comparison of selenium-based digital and conventional screen-film chest radiographs.
    Woodard PK; Slone RM; Sagel SS; Fleishman MJ; Gutierrez FR; Reiker GG; Pilgram TK; Jost RG
    Radiology; 1998 Dec; 209(3):705-9. PubMed ID: 9844662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Chest radiography: ROC phantom study of four different digital systems and one conventional radiographic system].
    Redlich U; Reissberg S; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Scherlach C; Döhring W
    Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 12525979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings.
    Rapp-Bernhardt U; Roehl FW; Gibbs RC; Schmidl H; Krause UW; Bernhardt TM
    Radiology; 2003 May; 227(2):484-92. PubMed ID: 12676965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Chest radiography with a digital flat-panel detector: experimental receiver operating characteristic analysis.
    Metz S; Damoser P; Hollweck R; Roggel R; Engelke C; Woertler K; Renger B; Rummeny EJ; Link TM
    Radiology; 2005 Mar; 234(3):776-84. PubMed ID: 15734933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. ROC-analysis of detection performance by analogue and digital plain film systems in chest radiography.
    Müller RD; Wähling S; Hirche H; Voss M; Blendl C; Gocke C; Gocke P; Buddenbrock B; John V; Wiebringhaus R; Turowski B
    Acta Radiol; 1996 Nov; 37(6):847-54. PubMed ID: 8995453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Detectability of simulated pulmonary nodules on chest radiographs: comparison between irradiation side sampling indirect flat-panel detector and computed radiography.
    Yano Y; Yabuuchi H; Tanaka N; Morishita J; Akasaka T; Matsuo Y; Sunami S; Kamitani T; Jinnouchi M; Yamasaki Y; Nagao M; Sasaki M
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 82(11):2050-4. PubMed ID: 23827799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Chest imaging with a selenium detector versus conventional film radiography: a CT-controlled study.
    van Heesewijk HP; van der Graaf Y; de Valois JC; Vos JA; Feldberg MA
    Radiology; 1996 Sep; 200(3):687-90. PubMed ID: 8756915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Digital chest x-rays with a selenium detector: a prospective comparison with a conventional film-screen combination].
    Freund M; Reuter M; Palmié S; Harder E; Hutzelmann A; Heller M
    Rofo; 1997 Feb; 166(2):101-7. PubMed ID: 9116250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Ability of chest X-ray to detect faint shadows documented as ground-glass attenuation in images of computed tomography: a comparison between flat-panel detector radiography and film-screen radiography.
    Nagatani Y; Nitta N; Ikeda M; Kitahara H; Otani H; Seko A; Tanaka T; Murakami Y; Takahashi M; Murata K
    Eur J Radiol; 2010 Sep; 75(3):384-90. PubMed ID: 19481399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Study of X-ray filter and peak kilovoltage in film-screen chest radiographs in regard to detection of simulated pulmonary nodules: comparison between film-screen combination and FCR].
    Kiyono K; Sone S; Sakai F; Kawai T; Karakida O; Kasuga T; Hirano H; Matsumoto T
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1994 Nov; 54(13):1237-44. PubMed ID: 7610026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.