118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12195469)
1. Interobserver agreement and performance score comparison in quality control using a breast phantom: screen-film mammography vs computed radiography.
Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Satake H; Ishigaki S; Sawaki A; Ishigaki T
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2192-7. PubMed ID: 12195469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.
Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A; Joossens K; Celis V; Van Goethem M; Verslegers I; Nijs K; Rogge F; Marchal G
Eur Radiol; 2006 Jun; 16(6):1360-6. PubMed ID: 16518656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Intra- and interobserver agreement and performance score of breast phantom image interpretation: influence of ambient room lighting levels.
Koyama K; Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Muramoto H; Satake H; Sawaki A; Kato K; Fukushima H; Ishigaki T
Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):147-53. PubMed ID: 16967781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.
Yamada T; Suzuki A; Uchiyama N; Ohuchi N; Takahashi S
Eur Radiol; 2008 Nov; 18(11):2363-9. PubMed ID: 18491108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques.
Kheddache S; Thilander-Klang A; Lanhede B; Månsson LG; Bjurstam N; Ackerholm P; Björneld L
Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(4):591-7. PubMed ID: 10354868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom.
Lu ZF; Nickoloff EL; So JC; Dutta AK
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2003; 4(1):91-8. PubMed ID: 12540823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic quality of 50 and 100 μm computed radiography compared with screen-film mammography in operative breast specimens.
Pagliari CM; Hoang T; Reddy M; Wilkinson LS; Poloniecki JD; Given-Wilson RM
Br J Radiol; 2012 Jul; 85(1015):910-6. PubMed ID: 22096218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a phantom model.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Girnus R; Zähringer M; Gossmann A; Winnekendonk G; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):399-407. PubMed ID: 17242248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms.
Undrill PE; O'Kane AD; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2000 Oct; 55(10):782-90. PubMed ID: 11052880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and hard copy of computed radiography in full and two-thirds sizes in detection of interstitial lung disease.
Kondoh H; Ikezoe J; Inamura K; Kuroda C; Kozuka T
J Digit Imaging; 1994 Nov; 7(4):193-5. PubMed ID: 7858016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Observer performance of PACS-oriented digitized mammography in the detection of fibrils, microcalcifications, and masses: a phantom study].
Yamada S; Ueguchi T; Mihara N; Matsuzawa H; Sukenobu Y; Komizu M
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 May; 65(5):620-5. PubMed ID: 19498251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Computed radiography in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a comparison of 2.5 K x 2 K soft-copy images vs digital hard-copy film.
Brill PW; Winchester P; Cahill P; Lesser M; Durfee SM; Giess CS; Auld PA; Greenwald B
Pediatr Radiol; 1996; 26(5):333-6. PubMed ID: 8657462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [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]
20. A comparison between the electronic magnification (EM) and true magnification (TM) of breast phantom images using a CDMAM phantom.
Vahey K; Ryan E; McLean D; Poulos A; Rickard M
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jul; 81(7):1514-9. PubMed ID: 21481555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
