127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10480042)
1. Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality.
Braeuning MP; Cooper HW; O'Brien S; Burns CB; Washburn DB; Schell MJ; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70. PubMed ID: 10480042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of a new mammographic film: methods and considerations.
Tsalafoutas OA; Kolovos CA; Tsapaki V; Betsou S; Koliakou E; Maniatis PN; Xenofos S
Health Phys; 2008 Apr; 94(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 18332725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimum processing of mammographic film.
Sprawls P; Kitts EL
Radiographics; 1996 Mar; 16(2):349-54. PubMed ID: 8966292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. New mammography screen/film combinations: imaging characteristics and radiation dose.
Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Zheutlin J; Gornbein JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Apr; 154(4):713-9. PubMed ID: 2107663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparative study of films and screens for mammography.
Kirkpatrick AE; Law J
Br J Radiol; 1987 Jan; 60(709):73-8. PubMed ID: 3814998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An evaluation of the effect of processing conditions on mammographic film contrast, fog levels and speed.
McLean D
Australas Radiol; 1992 Aug; 36(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 1445107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms.
Undrill PE; O'Kane AD; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2000 Oct; 55(10):782-90. PubMed ID: 11052880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques.
Kheddache S; Thilander-Klang A; Lanhede B; Månsson LG; Bjurstam N; Ackerholm P; Björneld L
Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(4):591-7. PubMed ID: 10354868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
Bor D; Akdur K
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Sensitometric properties of Agfa Dentus OrthoLux, Agfa Dentus ST8G, and Kodak Ektavision panoramic radiographic film.
Wakoh M; Nishikawa K; Kobayashi N; Farman AG; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Feb; 91(2):244-51. PubMed ID: 11174605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Implications of using high contrast mammography X-ray film-screen combinations.
Meeson S; Young KC; Rust A; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Ramsdale ML
Br J Radiol; 2001 Sep; 74(885):825-35. PubMed ID: 11560831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Variation of the sensitometric characteristics of seven mammographic films with processing conditions.
Tsalafoutas IA; Dimakopoulou AD; Koulentianos ED; Serefoglou AN; Yakoumakis EN
Br J Radiol; 2004 Aug; 77(920):666-71. PubMed ID: 15326045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammography with synchrotron radiation: phase-detection techniques.
Arfelli F; Bonvicini V; Bravin A; Cantatore G; Castelli E; Palma LD; Michiel MD; Fabrizioli M; Longo R; Menk RH; Olivo A; Pani S; Pontoni D; Poropat P; Prest M; Rashevsky A; Ratti M; Rigon L; Tromba G; Vacchi A; Vallazza E; Zanconati F
Radiology; 2000 Apr; 215(1):286-93. PubMed ID: 10751500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A sensitometric comparison of Kodak Ektavision and Fuji Super HR-S panoramic radiographic films.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Kitagawa H; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Aug; 86(2):249-53. PubMed ID: 9720103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination.
Wojtasek DA; Teixidor HS; Govoni AF; Gareen IF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Feb; 154(2):265-70. PubMed ID: 2105011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
