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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10519298)

  • 41. [Thoracic radiographs with the AMBER system. A comparison of the diagnostic image quality of film-screen and storage-phosphor radiographs on the grid-partition stand and the AMBER system].
    Busch HP; Hartmann J; Freund MC; Lehmann KJ; Georgi M; Richter K
    Rofo; 1992 Mar; 156(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 1550921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Comparison of radiographic and anatomic femoral varus angle measurements in normal dogs.
    Swiderski JK; Radecki SV; Park RD; Palmer RH
    Vet Surg; 2008 Jan; 37(1):43-8. PubMed ID: 18199056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Contrast-detail phantom study for x-ray spectrum optimization regarding chest radiography using a cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.
    Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger N; Borisch I; Büttner R; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
    Invest Radiol; 2004 Oct; 39(10):610-8. PubMed ID: 15377940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Panoramic radiography in dental diagnostics.
    Molander B
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1996; 119():1-26. PubMed ID: 8971997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Penetration quality measurement for standardization of radiographic image quality.
    Lin PJ
    Med Phys; 1975; 2(1):5-8. PubMed ID: 1128460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparison of technique errors of intraoral radiographs taken on film v photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates.
    Zhang W; Huynh CP; Abramovitch K; Leon IL; Arvizu L
    Tex Dent J; 2012 Jun; 129(6):589-96. PubMed ID: 22866414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Exposure times at which dental xeroradiographs and radiographs have comparable optical density.
    Alexander JB; Andrews JD
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 Sep; 66(3):359-64. PubMed ID: 3174071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. 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]  

  • 49. Computed radiography versus screen-film radiography: detection of pulmonary edema in a rabbit model that simulates neonatal pulmonary infiltrates.
    Don S; Hildebolt CF; Sharp TL; Shackelford GD; Lau DM; Herman TE; McAlister WH
    Radiology; 1999 Nov; 213(2):455-60. PubMed ID: 10551226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Factors affecting the diagnostic quality of bitewing radiographs: a review.
    Chadwick BL; Dummer PH
    Br Dent J; 1998 Jan; 184(2):80-4; discussion 77. PubMed ID: 9489215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Film-based chest radiography: AMBER vs asymmetric screen-film systems.
    Chotas HG; Floyd CE; Ravin CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Oct; 161(4):743-7. PubMed ID: 8372749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Comparison of computerized digital and film-screen radiography: response to variation in imaging kVp.
    Broderick NJ; Long B; Dreesen RG; Cohen MD; Cory DA; Katz BP; Kalasinski LA
    Pediatr Radiol; 1992; 22(5):346-9. PubMed ID: 1408442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Radiation dose reduction in computed skeletal radiography. Effect on image quality.
    Jonsson A ; Herrlin K; Jonsson K; Lundin B; Sanfridsson J; Pettersson H
    Acta Radiol; 1996 Mar; 37(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 8600948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. [Reduction of patient exposure by the use of digital luminescence radiography].
    Seifert H; Chapot C
    J Radiol; 1999 Nov; 80(11):1555-60. PubMed ID: 10592912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Digital processing of film radiographs.
    Sommer FG; Smathers RL; Wheat RL; Alvarez RE; Brody WR; Cassel DM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1985 Jan; 144(1):191-6. PubMed ID: 3880625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [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]  

  • 57. Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging.
    Gislason AJ; Davies AG; Cowen AR
    Med Phys; 2010 Oct; 37(10):5258-69. PubMed ID: 21089760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. An evaluation of different imaging chains in clinical chest radiography.
    Manninen H; Terho EO; Wiljasalo M; Wiljasalo S; Soimakallio S
    Br J Radiol; 1984 Nov; 57(683):991-5. PubMed ID: 6535626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. [The reduction of the radiation dosage by means of storage phosphor-film radiography compared to a conventional film-screen system with a grid cassette on a skull phantom].
    Heyne JP; Merbold H; Sehner J; Neumann R; Freesmeyer M; Jonetz-Mentzel L; Kaiser WA
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 10464506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria.
    Lanhede B; Båth M; Kheddache S; Sund P; Björneld L; Widell M; Almén A; Besjakov J; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Herrmann C; Panzer W; Zankl M; Månsson LG
    Br J Radiol; 2002 Jan; 75(889):38-49. PubMed ID: 11806957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.