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.
36 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10624324)
1. Analysis of optical density and contrast in mammograms. Meeson S; Young KC; Ramsdale ML; Wallis MG; Cooke J Br J Radiol; 1999 Jul; 72(859):670-7. PubMed ID: 10624324 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Image features of true positive and false negative cancers in screening mammograms. Meeson S; Young KC; Wallis MG; Cooke J; Cummin A; Ramsdale ML Br J Radiol; 2003 Jan; 76(901):13-21. PubMed ID: 12595320 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography. Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria. Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Beam CA; Layde PM; Sullivan DC Arch Intern Med; 1996 Jan; 156(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 8546556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Procedure for quantitatively assessing automatic exposure control in mammography: a study of the GE Senographe 600 TS. Meeson S; Young KC; Hollaway PB; Wallis MG Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):615-20. PubMed ID: 11509397 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Skin edge perception in mammograms: a comparison of two film-screen combinations. Meeson S; Young KC; Cooke J Br J Radiol; 2000 Apr; 73(868):370-5. PubMed ID: 10844862 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Detection of clustered microcalcifications in small field digital mammography. Arodź T; Kurdziel M; Popiela TJ; Sevre EO; Yuen DA Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2006 Jan; 81(1):56-65. PubMed ID: 16310282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Initial experiences of using an automated volumetric measure of breast density: the standard mammogram form. Jeffreys M; Warren R; Highnam R; Smith GD Br J Radiol; 2006 May; 79(941):378-82. PubMed ID: 16632617 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Density correction of peripheral breast tissue on digital mammograms. Bick U; Giger ML; Schmidt RA; Nishikawa RM; Doi K Radiographics; 1996 Nov; 16(6):1403-11. PubMed ID: 8946544 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998. Young KC; Burch A Br J Radiol; 2000 Mar; 73(867):278-87. PubMed ID: 10817044 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical evaluation of assistant diagnostic system for mammograms using the auto-analyzing method. Endo T; Kido C; Horita K; Iguchi H Radiat Med; 1992; 10(2):50-4. PubMed ID: 1626058 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quantitative assessment of breast density from digitized mammograms into Tabar's patterns. Jamal N; Ng KH; Looi LM; McLean D; Zulfiqar A; Tan SP; Liew WF; Shantini A; Ranganathan S Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(22):5843-57. PubMed ID: 17068368 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting. Uematsu T; Kasami M Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Measurements of the frequency distribution of optical density in screening mammography. Kotre CJ; Robson KJ; Faulkner K Br J Radiol; 1994 Sep; 67(801):856-9. PubMed ID: 7953226 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Optical density variations in CT films and their effect on image quality. Tsalafoutas IA; Papoutsis GV; Maniatis PN; Gogos KA Br J Radiol; 2006 May; 79(941):425-31. PubMed ID: 16632624 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Diagnostic image quality of mammograms in german outpatient medical care]. Pfandzelter R; Wülfing U; Boedeker B; Heywang-Köbrunner S Rofo; 2010 Nov; 182(11):993-1000. PubMed ID: 20652850 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Inter-observer variability in the interpretation of mammograms. Vineis P; Sinistrero G; Temporelli A; Azzoni L; Bigo A; Burke P; Ciccone G; Fasciano F; Ferraris R; Frigerio A Tumori; 1988 Jun; 74(3):275-9. PubMed ID: 3400118 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Carcinoma mimicked by the sternal insertion of the pectoral muscle. Britton CA; Baratz AB; Harris KM AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Nov; 153(5):955-6. PubMed ID: 2801443 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]