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 *

63 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1628185)

  • 1. A preliminary investigation of the imaging performance of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography using a new design of mammographic quality control test object.
    Cowen AR; Brettle DS; Coleman NJ; Parkin GJ
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Jun; 65(774):528-35. PubMed ID: 1628185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reproducibility of Leeds TOR(MAM) mammographic test object plates.
    Underwood AC; Law J; Clayton C
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Feb; 70():186-91. PubMed ID: 9135446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of mammographic phantoms.
    Faulkner K; Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Feb; 67(794):174-80. PubMed ID: 8130980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Vanó E
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Jun; 67(798):556-63. PubMed ID: 8032809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Image optimization in a computed-radiography/photostimulable-phosphor system.
    Sherrier RH; Chotas HG; Johnson GA; Chiles C; Ravin CE
    J Digit Imaging; 1989 Nov; 2(4):212-9. PubMed ID: 2488166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Physical aspects of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography.
    Cowen AR; Workman A; Price JS
    Br J Radiol; 1993 Apr; 66(784):332-45. PubMed ID: 8495288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Objective assessment of phantom image quality in mammography: a feasibility study.
    Castellano Smith AD; Castellano Smith IA; Dance DR
    Br J Radiol; 1998 Jan; 71(841):48-58. PubMed ID: 9534699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. A phantom for the measurement of contrast detail performance in film-screen mammography.
    Thompson SR; Faulkner K
    Br J Radiol; 1991 Nov; 64(767):1049-55. PubMed ID: 1742587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cassette-based digital mammography.
    Seibert JA; Boone JM; Cooper VN; Lindfors KK
    Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2004 Oct; 3(5):413-27. PubMed ID: 15453806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.
    Feig SA; Yaffe MJ
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1205-30. PubMed ID: 7480666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Computed radiography: photostimulable phosphor image plate technology.
    Long BW
    Radiol Technol; 1989; 61(2):107-11. PubMed ID: 2587727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of a new mammographic film: methods and considerations.
    Tsalafoutas OA; Kolovos CA; Tsapaki V; Betsou S; Koliakou E; Maniatis PN; Xenofos S
    Health Phys; 2008 Apr; 94(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 18332725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Advantages of magnification in digital phase-contrast mammography using a practical X-ray tube.
    Honda C; Ohara H
    Eur J Radiol; 2008 Dec; 68(3 Suppl):S69-72. PubMed ID: 18584984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control.
    Friedrich MA
    Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Artifacts in digital mammography.
    Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Chest radiographic image quality: comparison of asymmetric screen-film, digital storage phosphor, and digital selenium drum systems--preliminary study.
    Beute GH; Flynn MJ; Eyler WR; Samei E; Spizarny DL; Zylak CJ
    Radiographics; 1998; 18(3):745-54. PubMed ID: 9599395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
    Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Artifacts in chest radiographs with a third-generation computed radiography system.
    Volpe JP; Storto ML; Andriole KP; Gamsu G
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Mar; 166(3):653-7. PubMed ID: 8623644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Digital luminescence radiography. Part 1: Basic principle, technical execution and clinical use].
    Döhring W; Urbach D
    Fortschr Med; 1991 Oct; 109(30):610-5. PubMed ID: 1761263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.