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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10841387)

  • 21. [Examinations of rare-earth film-screen-systems for image detectors in mammography (author's transl)].
    Weberling R
    Rontgenblatter; 1979 Mar; 32(3):109-16. PubMed ID: 432483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A comparison of two mammography film-screen combinations designed for standard-cycle processing.
    McParland BJ
    Br J Radiol; 1999 Jan; 72(853):73-5. PubMed ID: 10341692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [The procedures and results of a quality control program in mammography carried out on a regional basis].
    Milano F; Rosselli Del Turco M; Maggi E; Certo N; Morrone D; Lazzeri B
    Radiol Med; 1996 Mar; 91(3):187-93. PubMed ID: 8628928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A comparative evaluation of rare-earth screen-film systems. System speed, contrast, sensitometry, RMS noise, square-wave response function, and contrast-dose-detail analysis.
    Fearon T; Vucich J; Hoe J; McSweeney WJ; Potter BM
    Invest Radiol; 1986 Aug; 21(8):654-62. PubMed ID: 3744739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A comparison of image quality on 28 mammography X-ray sets in the UK.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Nov; 70(839):1131-8. PubMed ID: 9536904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Optimum processing of mammographic film.
    Sprawls P; Kitts EL
    Radiographics; 1996 Mar; 16(2):349-54. PubMed ID: 8966292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. An examination of errors in characteristic curve measurements of radiographic screen/film systems.
    Wagner LK; Barnes GT; Bencomo JA; Haus AG
    Med Phys; 1983; 10(3):365-9. PubMed ID: 6877185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Recent advances in screen-film mammography.
    Haus AG
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):913-28. PubMed ID: 3306773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [A comparison of various methods of x-ray sensitometry].
    Maslov LA; Gurvich AM; Chikirdin EG; Il'ina MA; Popova TA
    Med Tekh; 1988; (5):36-41. PubMed ID: 3200152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Short communication: a comparison of fine and medium screens for mammography.
    Burch A; Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Feb; 69(818):182-5. PubMed ID: 8785649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The influence of film processing temperature and time on mammographic image quality.
    Brink C; de Villiers JF; Lötter MG; van Zyl M
    Br J Radiol; 1993 Aug; 66(788):685-90. PubMed ID: 7719681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Consistency of film optical density in mammographic screening programmes.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Apr; 69(820):306-10. PubMed ID: 8665129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
    Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2002 May; 29(5):830-4. PubMed ID: 12033579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Relative speeds of Kodak computed radiography phosphors and screen-film systems.
    Huda W; Rill LN; Bruner AP
    Med Phys; 1997 Oct; 24(10):1621-8. PubMed ID: 9350716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluation of an asymmetric screen-film system for chest radiography.
    Morishita J; MacMahon H; Doi K; Carlin M; Sukenobu Y
    Med Phys; 1994 Nov; 21(11):1769-75. PubMed ID: 7891639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography.
    Barnes GT; Chakraborty DP
    Radiology; 1982 Dec; 145(3):815-21. PubMed ID: 7146416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.