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 *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11199434)

  • 1. [Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis].
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Schorn C; Fischer U; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):1052-6. PubMed ID: 11199434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [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]  

  • 3. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Funke M; Grabbe EH
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
    Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
    Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.
    Funke M; Breiter N; Hermann KP; Oestmann JW; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 1998 May; 71(845):528-34. PubMed ID: 9691898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
    Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
    J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization.
    Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Sato A; Saito M; Saito H; Matsuhashi T; Takahashi S
    Radiat Med; 2003; 21(4):166-71. PubMed ID: 14514123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].
    Diekmann S; Bick U; von Heyden H; Diekmann F
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
    Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography.
    Fischer U; Baum F; Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Vosshenrich R; Grabbe E
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Nov; 12(11):2679-83. PubMed ID: 12386757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. [Value and significance of digital full-field mammography within the scope of mammography screening].
    Grabbe E; Fischer U; Funke M; Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Baum F
    Radiologe; 2001 Apr; 41(4):359-65. PubMed ID: 11388057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.
    Kim HS; Han BK; Choo KS; Jeon YH; Kim JH; Choe YH
    Korean J Radiol; 2005; 6(4):214-20. PubMed ID: 16374078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of compressed breast thickness and dose on lesion detectability in digital mammography: FROC study with simulated lesions in real mammograms.
    Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Michielsen K; Cockmartin L; Struelens L; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2016 Sep; 43(9):5104. PubMed ID: 27587041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.
    Lewin JM; Hendrick RE; D'Orsi CJ; Isaacs PK; Moss LJ; Karellas A; Sisney GA; Kuni CC; Cutter GR
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):873-80. PubMed ID: 11230669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The impact on lesion detection via a multi-vendor study: A phantom-based comparison of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetic mammography.
    Vancoillie L; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2021 Oct; 48(10):6270-6292. PubMed ID: 34407213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Microcalcification detectability for four mammographic detectors: flat-panel, CCD, CR, and screen/film).
    Rong XJ; Shaw CC; Johnston DA; Lemacks MR; Liu X; Whitman GJ; Dryden MJ; Stephens TW; Thompson SK; Krugh KT; Lai CJ
    Med Phys; 2002 Sep; 29(9):2052-61. PubMed ID: 12349926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.