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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10602958)

  • 1. Image quality for five modern chest radiography techniques: a modified FROC study with an anthropomorphic chest phantom.
    Månsson LG; Kheddache S; Lanhede B; Tylén U
    Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(9):1826-34. PubMed ID: 10602958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions.
    Schaefer-Prokop CM; Prokop M; Schmidt A; Neitzel U; Galanski M
    Radiology; 1996 Oct; 201(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 8816519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Phantom study of chest radiography with storage phosphor, selenium, and film-screen systems.
    Kehler M; Lyttkens K; Andersson B; Hochbergs P; Lindberg CG; Medin J; Nordström AJ; Sanfridsson J; Vojciechowski J
    Acta Radiol; 1996 May; 37(3 Pt 1):332-6. PubMed ID: 8845264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. [Comparison of four digital and one conventional radiographic image systems for the chest in a patient study with subsequent system optimization].
    Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Reissberg S; Scherlach C; Döhring W
    Rofo; 2005 Feb; 177(2):272-8. PubMed ID: 15666237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease.
    Kroft LJ; Veldkamp WJ; Mertens BJ; Boot MV; Geleijns J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Aug; 185(2):339-46. PubMed ID: 16037503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Digital radiography: comparison of different methods for imaging of the thorax and the gastrointestinal tracts.
    Busch HP
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 Feb; 8(1 Suppl 1):8-10. PubMed ID: 7734546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Digital chest imaging: selenium radiography versus storage phosphor imaging. Comparison of visualization of specific anatomic regions of the chest.
    Biemans JM; Van Heesewijk JP; Van Der Graaf Y
    Invest Radiol; 2002 Jan; 37(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 11753154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Digital chest radiography with a selenium-based flat-panel detector versus a storage phosphor system: comparison of soft-copy images.
    Goo JM; Im JG; Kim JH; Seo JB; Kim TS; Shine SJ; Lee W
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Oct; 175(4):1013-8. PubMed ID: 11000155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Chest radiographic image quality: comparison of asymmetric screen-film, digital storage phosphor, and digital selenium drum systems--preliminary study.
    Beute GH; Flynn MJ; Eyler WR; Samei E; Spizarny DL; Zylak CJ
    Radiographics; 1998; 18(3):745-54. PubMed ID: 9599395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Image quality and exposure dose in digital projection radiography].
    Busch HP; Busch S; Decker C; Schilz C
    Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 12525978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Detection of simulated interstitial lung disease and catheters with selenium, storage phosphor, and film-based radiography.
    Bernhardt TM; Otto D; Reichel G; Ludwig K; Seifert S; Kropf S; Rapp-Bernhardt U
    Radiology; 1999 Nov; 213(2):445-54. PubMed ID: 10551225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [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]  

  • 14. Experimental evaluation of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for the pediatric chest: comparison with storage phosphor radiography at different exposures by using a chest phantom.
    Rapp-Bernhardt U; Bernhardt TM; Lenzen H; Esseling R; Roehl FW; Schiborr M; Theobald-Hormann I; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):485-91. PubMed ID: 16170012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Interpretation of subtle interstitial chest abnormalities: conventional radiography versus high-resolution storage-phosphor radiography--a preliminary study.
    Ikezoe J; Kohno N; Kido S; Takeuchi N; Johkoh T; Arisawa J; Kozuka T
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 Feb; 8(1 Suppl 1):31-6. PubMed ID: 7734537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Detection of simulated chest lesions: comparison of a conventional screen-film combination, an asymmetric screen-film system, and storage phosphor radiography.
    Leppert AG; Prokop M; Schaefer-Prokop CM; Galanski M
    Radiology; 1995 Apr; 195(1):259-63. PubMed ID: 7892482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Selenium-based digital radiography versus high-resolution storage phosphor radiography in the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules without calcification: receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
    Awai K; Komi M; Hori S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Nov; 177(5):1141-4. PubMed ID: 11641189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Conventional film-screen versus computed storage phosphor radiography. Simulated miliary lung disease in an anthropomorphic phantom.
    Mosser H; Pärtan G; Urban M; Krampla W; Ottes F; Hruby W
    Invest Radiol; 1995 Mar; 30(3):186-91. PubMed ID: 7797418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. High frequency edge enhancement in the detection of fine pulmonary lines. Parity between storage phosphor digital images and conventional chest radiography.
    Oestmann JW; Greene R; Rubens JR; Pile-Spellman E; Hall D; Robertson C; Llewellyn HJ; McCarthy KA; Potsaid M; White G
    Invest Radiol; 1989 Sep; 24(9):643-6. PubMed ID: 2807816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose.
    Ramli K; Abdullah BJ; Ng KH; Mahmud R; Hussain AF
    Australas Radiol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):460-6. PubMed ID: 16351609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.