127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10480042)
21. Optimizing optical density of a Kodak mammography film-screen combination with standard-cycle processing.
McParland BJ; Boyd MM; al Yousef K
Br J Radiol; 1998 Sep; 71(849):950-3. PubMed ID: 10195010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Sensitometric evaluation of some mammographic film-screen combinations.
McLean D
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Sep; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 1953502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A comparison of mammography screen-film combinations.
Schueler BA; Gray JE; Gisvold JJ
Radiology; 1992 Sep; 184(3):629-34. PubMed ID: 1509043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Mammographic film-processor temperature, development time, and chemistry: effect on dose, contrast, and noise.
Kimme-Smith C; Rothschild PA; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Moler C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Jan; 152(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 2783288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Mammography film processor replenishment rate: bromide level monitoring.
Kimme-Smith C; Wuelfing P; Kitts EL; Cagnon C; Basic M; Bassett L
Med Phys; 1997 Mar; 24(3):369-72. PubMed ID: 9089588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The first trial of phase contrast imaging for digital full-field mammography using a practical molybdenum x-ray tube.
Tanaka T; Honda C; Matsuo S; Noma K; Oohara H; Nitta N; Ota S; Tsuchiya K; Sakashita Y; Yamada A; Yamasaki M; Furukawa A; Takahashi M; Murata K
Invest Radiol; 2005 Jul; 40(7):385-96. PubMed ID: 15973129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Computed radiography versus screen-film mammography in detection of simulated microcalcifications: a receiver operating characteristic study based on phantom images.
Shaw CC; Wang T; King JL; Breitenstein DS; Chang TS; Harris KM; Baratz AB; Ganott MA; Reginella R; Sumkin JH; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 1998 Mar; 5(3):173-80. PubMed ID: 9522883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Automatic processing: effects of temperature and time changes on the sensitometric properties of light-sensitive films.
Thunthy KH; Hashimoto K; Weinberg R
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Jul; 72(1):112-8. PubMed ID: 1891230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Film-screen magnification versus electronic magnification and enhancement of digitized contact mammograms in the assessment of subtle microcalcifications.
Perisinakis K; Damilakis J; Kontogiannis E; Gourtsoyiannis N
Invest Radiol; 2001 Dec; 36(12):726-33. PubMed ID: 11753144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
Baydush AH; Floyd CE
Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Sensitometric and image analysis of T-grain film.
Thunthy KH; Weinberg R
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1986 Aug; 62(2):218-20. PubMed ID: 3462620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.
Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A; Joossens K; Celis V; Van Goethem M; Verslegers I; Nijs K; Rogge F; Marchal G
Eur Radiol; 2006 Jun; 16(6):1360-6. PubMed ID: 16518656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. [Study of the extended process for mammographic film with two-dimensional shape analysis of micro-calcifications].
Maruyama T; Yamamoto H
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2006 Jan; 62(1):105-14. PubMed ID: 16456511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Screen-film and digital mammography. Image quality and radiation dose considerations.
Haus AG; Yaffe MJ
Radiol Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 38(4):871-98. PubMed ID: 10943284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evaluation of radiographic image quality parameters obtained with the REX simulator.
Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; deAlmeida CE
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Nov; 147(4):614-8. PubMed ID: 21273198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The influence of film processing temperature and time on mammographic image quality.
Brink C; de Villiers JF; Lötter MG; van Zyl M
Br J Radiol; 1993 Aug; 66(788):685-90. PubMed ID: 7719681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Optimizing techniques in screen-film mammography.
Hendrick RE; Berns EA
Radiol Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 38(4):701-18, viii. PubMed ID: 10943272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
