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.
94 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10671599)
1. Diagnosis of gastric cancers: comparison of conventional radiography and digital radiography with a 4 million-pixel charge-coupled device. Iinuma G; Ushio K; Ishikawa T; Nawano S; Sekiguchi R; Satake M Radiology; 2000 Feb; 214(2):497-502. PubMed ID: 10671599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. New CR system with pixel size of 50 microm for digital mammography: physical imaging properties and detection of subtle microcalcifications. Ideguchi T; Higashida Y; Kawaji Y; Sasaki M; Zaizen M; Shibayama R; Nakamura Y; Koyanagi K; Ikeda H; Ohki M; Toyofuku F; Muranaka T Radiat Med; 2004; 22(4):218-24. PubMed ID: 15468941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. Garmer M; Hennigs SP; Jäger HJ; Schrick F; van de Loo T; Jacobs A; Hanusch A; Christmann A; Mathias K AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Jan; 174(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 10628458 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer. Gitlin JN; Scott WW; Bell K; Narayan A J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1(2):57-63. PubMed ID: 12105698 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Pisano ED; Cole EB; Kistner EO; Muller KE; Hemminger BM; Brown ML; Johnston RE; Kuzmiak CM; Braeuning MP; Freimanis RI; Soo MS; Baker JA; Walsh R Radiology; 2002 May; 223(2):483-8. PubMed ID: 11997557 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital tomosynthesis in the detection of urolithiasis: Diagnostic performance and dosimetry compared with digital radiography with MDCT as the reference standard. Mermuys K; De Geeter F; Bacher K; Van De Moortele K; Coenegrachts K; Steyaert L; Casselman JW AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Jul; 195(1):161-7. PubMed ID: 20566811 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of 2048-line digital display formats and conventional radiographs: an ROC study. Hayrapetian A; Aberle DR; Huang HK; Fiske R; Morioka C; Valentino D; Boechat MI AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 May; 152(5):1113-8. PubMed ID: 2705346 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation with conventional, laser-printed, and high-resolution workstation images. Slasky BS; Gur D; Good WF; Costa-Greco MA; Harris KM; Cooperstein LA; Rockette HE Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):775-80. PubMed ID: 2305061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Photostimulable phosphor digital radiography of the extremities: diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional radiography. Wilson AJ; Mann FA; Murphy WA; Monsees BS; Linn MR AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Sep; 157(3):533-8. PubMed ID: 1872241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Chest imaging with a selenium detector versus conventional film radiography: a CT-controlled study. van Heesewijk HP; van der Graaf Y; de Valois JC; Vos JA; Feldberg MA Radiology; 1996 Sep; 200(3):687-90. PubMed ID: 8756915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic performance of virtual gastroscopy using MDCT in early gastric cancer compared with 2D axial CT: focusing on interobserver variation. Kim JH; Eun HW; Choi JH; Hong SS; Kang W; Auh YH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Aug; 189(2):299-305. PubMed ID: 17646454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Urinary calculi on computed radiography: comparison of observer performance with hard-copy versus soft-copy images on different viewer systems. Kim AY; Cho KS; Song KS; Kim JH; Kim JG; Ha HK AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Aug; 177(2):331-5. PubMed ID: 11461856 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Efficacy of digital radiography for the detection of pneumothorax: comparison with conventional chest radiography. Elam EA; Rehm K; Hillman BJ; Maloney K; Fajardo LL; McNeill K AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Mar; 158(3):509-14. PubMed ID: 1738985 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital radiography of subtle pulmonary abnormalities: an ROC study of the effect of pixel size on observer performance. MacMahon H; Vyborny CJ; Metz CE; Doi K; Sabeti V; Solomon SL Radiology; 1986 Jan; 158(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 3940383 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of a digital workstation for interpreting neonatal examinations. A receiver operating characteristic study. Franken EA; Berbaum KS; Marley SM; Smith WL; Sato Y; Kao SC; Milam SG Invest Radiol; 1992 Sep; 27(9):732-7. PubMed ID: 1399457 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Different pixel pitch and maximum luminance of medical grade displays may result in different evaluations of digital radiography images. Laffranchi A; Cicero C; Lualdi M; Ciniselli CM; Calareso G; Canestrini S; Greco FG; Alberioli E; Cavatorta C; Guarise A; Pignoli E; Plebani M; Scaramuzza D; Siciliano C; Verderio P; Marchianò A Radiol Med; 2018 Aug; 123(8):586-592. PubMed ID: 29671208 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Detection of interstitial lung abnormalities on picture archive and communication system video monitors. Washowich TL; Williams SC; Richardson LA; Simmons GE; Dao NV; Allen TW; Hammet GC; Morris MJ J Digit Imaging; 1997 Feb; 10(1):34-9. PubMed ID: 9147526 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cover illustration: case of the month: imaging of early invasive gastric cancer with digital radiography using 4 million pixel CCD. Jpn J Clin Oncol; 1998 Aug; 28(8):459. PubMed ID: 9769777 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Digital luminescence radiography in comparison with the conventional film-screen technique in diagnosis of fractures]. Fink U; Schwerdtfeger J; Fink BK; Schätzl M; Reiser M Rofo; 1996 Apr; 164(4):275-80. PubMed ID: 8645859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]