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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1742587)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Computer-aided detection in mammography.
    Astley SM; Gilbert FJ
    Clin Radiol; 2004 May; 59(5):390-9. PubMed ID: 15081844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria.
    Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Subjective evaluation of image quality based on images obtained with a breast tissue phantom: comparison with a conventional image quality phantom.
    Olsen JB; Sager EM
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Feb; 68(806):160-4. PubMed ID: 7735746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A new phantom for mammography.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1991 Feb; 64(758):116-20. PubMed ID: 2004202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measurements of the frequency distribution of optical density in screening mammography.
    Kotre CJ; Robson KJ; Faulkner K
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Sep; 67(801):856-9. PubMed ID: 7953226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. [Film-screen combinations for mammography].
    Säbel M; Aichinger H
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1991 May; 1(3):105-12. PubMed ID: 1878377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Performance parameters for mammography screening.
    Ellis RL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Nov; 191(5):W204; author reply W205. PubMed ID: 18941056
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of image quality on 28 mammography X-ray sets in the UK.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Nov; 70(839):1131-8. PubMed ID: 9536904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
    Bor D; Akdur K
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Assessment of mammographic film processor performance in a hospital and mobile screening unit.
    Murray JG; Dowsett DJ; Laird O; Ennis JT
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Dec; 65(780):1097-101. PubMed ID: 1286417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images.
    Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ; Lawton DT
    Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):709-23. PubMed ID: 9167162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.