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.
113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12881681)
21. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Krupinski E; Roehrig H; Furukawa T Acad Radiol; 1999 Jul; 6(7):411-8. PubMed ID: 10410166 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. The use of a contrast-detail test object in the optimization of optical density in mammography. Robson KJ; Kotre CJ; Faulkner K Br J Radiol; 1995 Mar; 68(807):277-82. PubMed ID: 7735767 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [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]
25. A survey on performance status of mammography machines: image quality and dosimetry studies using a standard mammography imaging phantom. Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jul; 150(3):325-33. PubMed ID: 22090414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Hemminger BM; Dillon AW; Johnston RE; Muller KE; Deluca MC; Coffey CS; Pisano ED Med Phys; 1999 Nov; 26(11):2266-72. PubMed ID: 10587207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses. Yang WT; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Murphy WA; Dryden MJ; Kushwaha AC; Sahin AA; Johnston D; Dempsey PJ; Shaw CC AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):W576-81. PubMed ID: 17114508 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Quality control programme in mammography: second level quality controls. Nassivera E; Nardin L Br J Radiol; 1997 Jun; 70(834):612-8. PubMed ID: 9227255 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Use of digital mammography in needle localization procedures. Dershaw DD; Fleischman RC; Liberman L; Deutch B; Abramson AF; Hann L AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Sep; 161(3):559-62. PubMed ID: 8352104 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector. Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems. Cooper VN; Oshiro T; Cagnon CH; Bassett LW; McLeod-Stockmann TM; Bezrukiy NV Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2614-21. PubMed ID: 14596297 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Computed radiography-based mammography with 50-microm pixel size: intra-individual comparison with film-screen mammography for diagnosis of breast cancers. Onishi H; Masuda N; Takechi K; Nakayama T; Tatsuta M; Mihara N; Takamura M; Inoue Y; Kuriyama K; Kotsuma Y; Furukawa H; Murakami T; Nakamura H Acad Radiol; 2009 Jul; 16(7):836-41. PubMed ID: 19345121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan. Yamada T Breast Cancer; 2010 Jul; 17(3):163-8. PubMed ID: 20143190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [Clinical trial of mammography with film-screen-combinations. Part 1: Selection of a suitable film-screen system]. Säbel M; Paterok EM; Weishaar J; Willgeroth F Rontgenpraxis; 1981; 34(11):458-66. PubMed ID: 7313855 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]