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.
82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10341692)
21. [Comparison of film-screen combinations with contrast detail diagram and interactive image analysis. 2: Linear assessment of grey scale ranges with interactive image analysis]. Stamm G; Eichbaum G; Hagemann G Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Sep; 7(5):284-7. PubMed ID: 9410005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic]. Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Comparison of film-screen combination in a contrast detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 1: Contrast detail diagram]. Hagemann G; Eichbaum G Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Jul; 7(4):212-5. PubMed ID: 9340021 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study. Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Using light sensitometry to evaluate mammography film performance. West MS; Spelic DC Med Phys; 2000 May; 27(5):854-60. PubMed ID: 10841387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A comparison of the imaging characteristics of the new Kodak Hyper Speed G film with the current T-MAT G/RA film and the CR 9000 system. Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Verdun FR Phys Med Biol; 2005 Oct; 50(19):4541-52. PubMed ID: 16177488 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Complex evaluation of film mammographic imaging systems. 2. Comparison of 18 systems using a signal-noise matrix]. Friedrich M; Weskamp P Rofo; 1984 Jun; 140(6):707-16. PubMed ID: 6429790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Direct digital magnification mammography with a large-surface detector made of amorphous silicon]. Hermann KP; Hundertmark C; Funke M; von Brenndorff A; Grabbe E Rofo; 1999 May; 170(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 10370416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of an Agfa and Kodak film-screen combination for mammography. Dudson J Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1994 Dec; 17(4):211-6. PubMed ID: 7872903 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Image quality and optical density in mammography: study on phantoms]. Stinés J; Noël A; Estivalet S; Troufléau P; Netter E; Quinquis J J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 79(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 9757259 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Comparison of film-screen combinations in contrast-detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 3: Trimodal histograms of gray scale distribution in bar groups of lead pattern images]. Hagemann G; Eichbaum G; Stamm G Aktuelle Radiol; 1998 May; 8(3):151-6. PubMed ID: 9645256 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Unusual artifact with mammography film. Hedrick WR; Poulton TB; Starchman DE; Tobias TE Radiology; 1998 Mar; 206(3):835-7. PubMed ID: 9494510 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A comparison of two different T-grain films in rare-earth screens with a standard film-screen combination for intravenous pyelography and bone examinations. Logan H; Daly L; Masterson J Br J Radiol; 1989 Mar; 62(735):237-40. PubMed ID: 2702380 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Value of increasing film processing time to reduce radiation dose during mammography. Skubic SE; Yagan R; Oravec D; Shah Z AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Dec; 155(6):1189-93. PubMed ID: 2122664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]