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 *

482 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10705143)

  • 21. [Efficacy of storage phosphor-based digital mammography in diagnosis of breast cancer--comparison with film-screen mammography].
    Kitahama H
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1991 May; 51(5):547-60. PubMed ID: 1651472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Digital luminescence mammography. Early clinical experience.
    Jarlman O; Samuelsson L; Braw M
    Acta Radiol; 1991 Mar; 32(2):110-3. PubMed ID: 2031792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Spatial resolution in digital mammography.
    Karssemeijer N; Frieling JT; Hendriks JH
    Invest Radiol; 1993 May; 28(5):413-9. PubMed ID: 8496034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Breast imaging: a comparison of digital luminescence radiographs displayed on TV-monitor and film-screen mammography.
    Jarlman O; Borg A; Braw M; Kehler M; Lyttkens K; Samuelsson L
    Cancer Detect Prev; 1994; 18(5):375-81. PubMed ID: 7812984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Full-field digital mammography: a phantom study for detection of microcalcification].
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Funke M; Fischer U; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2000 Jul; 172(7):646-50. PubMed ID: 10962993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of two screen-film combinations in contact and magnification mammography: detectability of microcalcifications.
    Oestmann JW; Kopans DB; Linetsky L; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; White G; Swann C; Kelley JE; Johnson LL
    Radiology; 1988 Sep; 168(3):657-9. PubMed ID: 3406394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
    Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Munzel U; Baum F; Grabbe E
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.
    Lewin JM; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE; Moss LJ; Isaacs PK; Karellas A; Cutter GR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Sep; 179(3):671-7. PubMed ID: 12185042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms.
    Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Lell M; Kuchar I; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A comparison of digital luminescence mammography and conventional film - screen system: preliminary results of clinical evaluation.
    Perlet C; Becker C; Sittek H; Pistitsch C; Jäger L; Kessler M; Reiser M
    Eur J Med Res; 1998 Mar; 3(3):165-71. PubMed ID: 9502757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography.
    Brettle DS; Ward SC; Parkin GJ; Cowen AR; Sumsion HJ
    Br J Radiol; 1994 May; 67(797):464-8. PubMed ID: 8193893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.
    Chan HP; Vyborny CJ; MacMahon H; Metz CE; Doi K; Sickles EA
    Invest Radiol; 1987 Jul; 22(7):581-9. PubMed ID: 3623862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.
    Yang WT; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Murphy WA; Dryden MJ; Kushwaha AC; Sahin AA; Johnston D; Dempsey PJ; Shaw CC
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):W576-81. PubMed ID: 17114508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Conventional versus digital mammography in the analysis of screen-detected lesions with low positive predictive value.
    Bonardi R; Ambrogetti D; Ciatto S; Gentile E; Lazzari B; Mantellini P; Nannelli E; Ristori E; Sottani L; Turco MR
    Eur J Radiol; 2005 Aug; 55(2):258-63. PubMed ID: 16036157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography.
    Glueck DH; Lamb MM; Lewin JM; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 2007 Jun; 14(6):670-6. PubMed ID: 17502256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The use of an interactive software program for quantitative characterization of microcalcifications on digitized film-screen mammograms.
    Leichter I; Lederman R; Bamberger P; Novak B; Fields S; Buchbinder SS
    Invest Radiol; 1999 Jun; 34(6):394-400. PubMed ID: 10353031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.
    Yip WM; Pang SY; Yim WS; Kwok CS
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):621-8. PubMed ID: 11509398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.