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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10841387)

  • 41. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. [Complex evaluation of film mammographic imaging systems. 2. Comparison of 18 systems using a signal-noise matrix].
    Friedrich M; Weskamp P
    Rofo; 1984 Jun; 140(6):707-16. PubMed ID: 6429790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Characterization of the reciprocity law failure in three mammography screen-film systems.
    de Almeida A; Sobol WT; Barnes GT
    Med Phys; 1999 May; 26(5):682-8. PubMed ID: 10360527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Sensitometric evaluation of some mammographic film-screen combinations.
    McLean D
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Sep; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 1953502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Practical application of a scan-rotate equalization geometry to mammography.
    Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB
    Med Phys; 1996 Dec; 23(12):1987-96. PubMed ID: 8994163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. [The technical support of mammography].
    Rozhkova NI; Chikirdin EG; Riudiger IuG; Kochetova GP; Lisachenko IV; Iakobs OE
    Med Tekh; 2000; (5):45-7. PubMed ID: 11076366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Modification of an automatic exposure control system for mammography to accommodate multiple-speed, screen-film systems.
    Rossi RP; Williams C; Gill D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 Oct; 151(4):685-6. PubMed ID: 3262269
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Light sensitometry of mammography films at varying development temperatures and times.
    Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS
    J Med Phys; 2012 Jan; 37(1):40-5. PubMed ID: 22363111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The imaging performance of compact Lu2O3:Eu powdered phosphor screens: Monte Carlo simulation for applications in mammography.
    Liaparinos PF; Kandarakis IS
    Med Phys; 2009 Jun; 36(6):1985-97. PubMed ID: 19610287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. [Signal detectability of mammography depends on film-screen system and luminance of view box].
    Maeda F; Ogura A; Miyai A
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2003 Jun; 59(6):746-50. PubMed ID: 12881681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Film-screen combinations in mammography.
    Price JL; Gamble J; Pearce P
    Br J Radiol; 1985 Jan; 58(685):99-100. PubMed ID: 4063647
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Mammographic dual-screen-dual-emulsion-film combination: visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Roe D; Orr J
    Radiology; 1987 Nov; 165(2):313-8. PubMed ID: 3310091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents. Measures of screen-film performance.
    Haus AG
    Radiographics; 1996 Sep; 16(5):1165-81. PubMed ID: 8888396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Unusual artifact with mammography film.
    Hedrick WR; Poulton TB; Starchman DE; Tobias TE
    Radiology; 1998 Mar; 206(3):835-7. PubMed ID: 9494510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination.
    Wojtasek DA; Teixidor HS; Govoni AF; Gareen IF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Feb; 154(2):265-70. PubMed ID: 2105011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Evaluation of several sensitometers for use in processing quality assurance.
    Goldman LW; Watkins RT
    Radiol Technol; 1979; 50(5):539-42. PubMed ID: 493499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with conventional screen film system (SFS), digital phosphor storage plate in/without magnification technique (CR) and digital CCD-technique (CCD).
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Säbel M; Böhner C; Dobritz M; Wenkel E; Bautz W
    Rontgenpraxis; 2001; 54(4):123-6. PubMed ID: 11883115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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