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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12881681)

  • 1. [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]  

  • 2. Effects of ambient light and view box luminance on the detection of calcifications in mammography.
    Kimme-Smith C; Haus AG; DeBruhl N; Bassett LW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Mar; 168(3):775-8. PubMed ID: 9057533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [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]  

  • 4. Comparison of mammographic screen-film systems.
    Sickles EA
    Recent Results Cancer Res; 1987; 105():52-7. PubMed ID: 3589132
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. View box luminance measurements and their effect on reader performance.
    Rill LN; Huda W; Gkanatsios NA
    Acad Radiol; 1999 Sep; 6(9):521-9. PubMed ID: 10894060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Optimizing optical density of a Kodak mammography film-screen combination with standard-cycle processing.
    McParland BJ; Boyd MM; al Yousef K
    Br J Radiol; 1998 Sep; 71(849):950-3. PubMed ID: 10195010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An experimental investigation of the effect of light-box luminance on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography.
    Robson KJ; Kotre CJ; Faulkner K
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Feb; 69(818):153-9. PubMed ID: 8785644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Radiographic techniques in screen-film mammography.
    LaVoy TR; Huda W; Ogden KM
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2002; 3(3):248-54. PubMed ID: 12132948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [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]  

  • 15. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
    Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Recent trends in screen-film mammography: technical factors and radiation dose.
    Haus AG
    Recent Results Cancer Res; 1987; 105():37-51. PubMed ID: 3296054
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.