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 *

82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10341692)

  • 41. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Consistency of film optical density in mammographic screening programmes.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Apr; 69(820):306-10. PubMed ID: 8665129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Effects of delayed processing on mammographic phantom object detection.
    Gerhardt DA; Pisano ED; Johnson C; Braeuning P; Dicke K; Washburn DB; Burns C; Huang KS
    Invest Radiol; 1993 Dec; 28(12):1113-9. PubMed ID: 8307714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Quality control in mammography.
    Hendrick RE; Botsco M; Plott CM
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1041-57. PubMed ID: 7480654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Optimum processing of mammographic film.
    Sprawls P; Kitts EL
    Radiographics; 1996 Mar; 16(2):349-54. PubMed ID: 8966292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
    Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
    Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Modification of an automatic exposure control system for mammography to accommodate multiple-speed, screen-film systems.
    Rossi RP; Williams C; Gill D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 Oct; 151(4):685-6. PubMed ID: 3262269
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
    Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Technologic improvements in screen-film mammography.
    Haus AG
    Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):628-37. PubMed ID: 2406777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. [Experimental study on image quality when using screens in mammography (author's transl)].
    Maurer HJ; Goos F
    Rofo; 1979 Mar; 130(3):347-51. PubMed ID: 155580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Assessment of radiographic screen-film systems: a comparison between the use of a microdensitometer and a drum film digitiser.
    Verdun FR; Pachoud M; Bergmann D; Buhr E
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):208-13. PubMed ID: 15933110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Phantom evaluation of the effect of film processing on mammographic screen-film combinations.
    McLean D; Rickard MT
    Australas Radiol; 1994 Aug; 38(3):179-82. PubMed ID: 7945109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. [Signal detectability of mammography depends on film-screen system and luminance of view box].
    Maeda F; Ogura A; Miyai A
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2003 Jun; 59(6):746-50. PubMed ID: 12881681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [Evaluating the diagnostic quality of mammography film-screen systems: a comparative study].
    Nüssle K; Görich J; Rieber A; Brambs HJ
    Rontgenpraxis; 1999; 52(5-6):178-81. PubMed ID: 10574026
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Further comparisons of films, screens and cassettes for mammography.
    Law J; Kirkpatrick AE
    Br J Radiol; 1990 Feb; 63(746):128-31. PubMed ID: 2310905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Characterization of the reciprocity law failure in three mammography screen-film systems.
    de Almeida A; Sobol WT; Barnes GT
    Med Phys; 1999 May; 26(5):682-8. PubMed ID: 10360527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Evaluation of several film/screen combinations for megavoltage radiation therapy treatment field verification.
    Das IJ; McCullough EC; Weber F
    Med Dosim; 1988; 13(2):95-7. PubMed ID: 3150812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Radiation quality in assessing glandular dose in film-screen mammography.
    Servomaa A; Tapiovaara M
    Phys Med Biol; 1991 Sep; 36(9):1247-8. PubMed ID: 1946607
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Contrast reduction using energy dependent intensifying screens.
    Shah GA; Hassam G; Newman DL
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jun; 69(822):563-6. PubMed ID: 8757660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.