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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1742587)

  • 21. Performance of mammography equipment in the Macedonian breast screening campaign 2008/2009.
    Gershan V; Antevska-Grujoska S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):187-91. PubMed ID: 21733866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
    Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Improving mammographic interpretation: double reading and computer-aided diagnosis.
    Helvie M
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2007 Sep; 45(5):801-11, vi. PubMed ID: 17888770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Development of acceptability criteria in mammography.
    Faulkner K; Malone JF; Bosmans H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb; 153(2):219-22. PubMed ID: 23169814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium.
    Smans K; Bosmans H; Xiao M; Carton AK; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):321-6. PubMed ID: 16464839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Quality assurance in screening mammography.
    Health Devices; 1990; 19(5-6):152-98. PubMed ID: 2372321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. [Computer-assisted visualization of digital mammography images].
    Funke M; Netsch T; Breiter N; Biehl M; Peitgen HO; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1999 Nov; 171(5):359-63. PubMed ID: 10619037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A comparison of mean glandular dose diagnostic reference levels within the all-digital Irish National Breast Screening Programme and the Irish Symptomatic Breast Services.
    O'Leary D; Rainford L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Mar; 153(3):300-8. PubMed ID: 22740646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Quality control in mammography: an initiative in France.
    Maccia C; Renaud R; Castellano S; Schaffer P; Wahl R; Haehnel P; Dale G; Gairard B
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Apr; 67(796):371-83. PubMed ID: 8173879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Exploratory survey of image quality on CR digital mammography imaging systems in Mexico.
    Gaona E; Rivera T; Arreola M; Franco J; Molina N; Alvarez B; Azorín CG; Casian G
    Appl Radiat Isot; 2014 Jan; 83 Pt C():245-8. PubMed ID: 23938078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Consistency of film optical density in mammographic screening programmes.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Apr; 69(820):306-10. PubMed ID: 8665129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Phantom evaluation of the effect of film processing on mammographic screen-film combinations.
    McLean D; Rickard MT
    Australas Radiol; 1994 Aug; 38(3):179-82. PubMed ID: 7945109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [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]  

  • 37. Performance evaluation of image processing algorithms in CADe.
    Wirth MA
    Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2005 Apr; 4(2):159-72. PubMed ID: 15773785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Quality assurance results from a breast screening pilot study.
    Thiele DL
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Sep; 14(3):163-8. PubMed ID: 1953503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluation of mammographic screen-film systems.
    Arnold BA; Webster EW; Kalisher L
    Radiology; 1978 Oct; 129(1):179-85. PubMed ID: 693873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Daily quality control programme in mammography.
    Nassivera E; Nardin L
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Feb; 69(818):148-52. PubMed ID: 8785643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.