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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14610710)

  • 1. [Experimental investigations at the new digital mammographic system].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Lell M; Wenkel E; Aichinger U; Imhoff K; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2003 Nov; 175(11):1564-6. PubMed ID: 14610710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Lell M; Kuchar I; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
    Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Phantom study for the detection of simulated lesions in five different digital and one conventional mammography system].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Lell M; Böhner C; Wenkel E; Imhoff K; Schmid A; Krug B; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2004 Aug; 176(8):1127-32. PubMed ID: 15346289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography].
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2000 Nov; 172(11):940-5. PubMed ID: 11142129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Experimental phantom lesion detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system.
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Lell M; Böhner C; Bautz WA; Mertelmeier T
    Rofo; 2006 Dec; 178(12):1219-23. PubMed ID: 17136645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Physical characterization of a high-resolution CCD detector for mammography.
    Elbakri IA; Tesic MM; Xiong Q
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Apr; 52(8):2171-83. PubMed ID: 17404462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Direct digital mammography using a scanned-slot CCD imaging system.
    Yaffe MJ
    Med Prog Technol; 1993; 19(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 8302210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Monochromatic x-rays in digital mammography.
    Lawaczeck R; Arkadiev V; Diekmann F; Krumrey M
    Invest Radiol; 2005 Jan; 40(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 15597018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
    Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
    Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
    Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 May; 54(9):2845-61. PubMed ID: 19384004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital mammography: quality and dose control.
    Di Maggio C; Gambaccini M; Gennaro G; Baldelli P; Taibi A; Chersevani R; Aimonetto S; Rossetti V; Origgi D; Vigorito S; Contento G; Angelini L; Maggi S
    Radiol Med; 2004; 107(5-6):459-73. PubMed ID: 15195008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Comparing the clinical value of spot view mammography with reduced pixel size to monitor zooming by reporting microcalcifications in digital mammography].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Adamietz B; Lell M; Böhner C; Uder M; Bautz WA
    Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):492-6. PubMed ID: 17436183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.