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 *

69 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16767818)

  • 1. [Technological subjects on mammography].
    Sai M
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2006 May; 62(5):636-41. PubMed ID: 16767818
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Qualitative JPEG 2000 compression in digital mammography - evaluation using 480 mammograms of the CDMAM phantom.
    Schreiter NF; Steffen IG; Miller J; Fallenberg E; Poellinger A; Bick U; Diekmann F
    Rofo; 2011 Jul; 183(7):650-7. PubMed ID: 21667423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Computed radiography.
    Kantor C
    Biomed Instrum Technol; 1997; 31(1):73-5. PubMed ID: 9051233
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. [Symposium 2: the problems and the future perspectives of the digital mammography].
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2013 Dec; 69(12):1419-35. PubMed ID: 24366563
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Principles of digital imaging.
    van der Stelt PF
    Dent Clin North Am; 2000 Apr; 44(2):237-48, v. PubMed ID: 10740766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Image quality measurements in radiology.
    Tapiovaara M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):116-9. PubMed ID: 16461535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Rogge F; Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Nijs K; Van Steen A; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):120-30. PubMed ID: 16461531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Nuclear physics, radiation protection, roentgen technology. Roentgen exposure systems (review report)].
    Friedrich C
    Radiol Diagn (Berl); 1978 Apr; 19(2):269-81. PubMed ID: 674617
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital detectors in mammography. A technological overview.
    Dhaenens F
    JBR-BTR; 2000 Apr; 83(2):84-7. PubMed ID: 10859905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Computed radiography: its impact on radiographers.
    Cesar LJ
    Radiol Technol; 1997; 68(3):225-32. PubMed ID: 9008016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
    Klausz R; Shramchenko N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Mammography. Still at the technological advant-guard].
    Page M
    J Radiol; 1997 Apr; 78(4 Suppl):88-91. PubMed ID: 9239335
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mammography of a phantom and breast tissue with synchrotron radiation and a linear-array silicon detector.
    Arfelli F; Bonvicini V; Bravin A; Cantatore G; Castelli E; Dalla Palma L; Di Michiel M; Longo R; Olivo A; Pani S; Pontoni D; Poropat P; Prest M; Rashevsky A; Tromba G; Vacchi A
    Radiology; 1998 Sep; 208(3):709-15. PubMed ID: 9722850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [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]  

  • 16. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Digital x-ray: unwavering commitment collides with monumental challenges.
    Freiherr G
    Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1999 Nov; Suppl Digital():D4-7. PubMed ID: 10724732
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
    Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
    Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Re "Phantom study for the detection of simulated lesions in five different digital and one conventional mammography system"].
    Brunst G
    Rofo; 2004 Nov; 176(11):1702; author reply 1702. PubMed ID: 15559966
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of a novel method of noise reduction using computer-simulated mammograms.
    Tischenko O; Hoeschen C; Dance DR; Hunt RA; Maidment AD; Bakic PR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):81-4. PubMed ID: 15933085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.