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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18430873)

  • 1. Detection of simulated inflicted metaphyseal fractures in a fetal pig model: image optimization and dose reduction with computed radiography.
    Kleinman PL; Zurakowski D; Strauss KJ; Cleveland RH; Perez-Rosello JM; Nichols DP; Zou KH; Kleinman PK
    Radiology; 2008 May; 247(2):381-90. PubMed ID: 18430873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Detection of subtle undisplaced rib fractures in a porcine model: radiation dose requirement--digital flat-panel versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems.
    Ludwig K; Schülke C; Diederich S; Wormanns D; Lenzen H; Bernhardt TM; Brinckmann P; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2003 Apr; 227(1):163-8. PubMed ID: 12615999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Detection of porcine bone lesions and fissures: comparing digital selenium, digital luminescence, and analog film-screen radiography.
    Zähringer M; Krug B; Kamm KF; Wassmer G; Hellmich M; Winnekendonk G; Andermahr J; Gossmann A; Lackner KJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Dec; 177(6):1397-403. PubMed ID: 11717093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
    Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Computed radiography versus screen-film mammography in detection of simulated microcalcifications: a receiver operating characteristic study based on phantom images.
    Shaw CC; Wang T; King JL; Breitenstein DS; Chang TS; Harris KM; Baratz AB; Ganott MA; Reginella R; Sumkin JH; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 1998 Mar; 5(3):173-80. PubMed ID: 9522883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.
    Ludwig K; Lenzen H; Kamm KF; Link TM; Diederich S; Wormanns D; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2002 Feb; 222(2):453-9. PubMed ID: 11818613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Selenium-based digital radiography in the detection of bone lesions: preliminary experience with experimentally created defects.
    Ludwig K; Link TM; Fiebich M; Renger B; Diederich S; Oelerich M; Lenzen H; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2000 Jul; 216(1):220-4. PubMed ID: 10887251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [The reduction of the radiation dosage by means of storage phosphor-film radiography compared to a conventional film-screen system with a grid cassette on a skull phantom].
    Heyne JP; Merbold H; Sehner J; Neumann R; Freesmeyer M; Jonetz-Mentzel L; Kaiser WA
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 10464506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose: comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon.
    Strotzer M; Gmeinwieser JK; Völk M; Fründ R; Seitz J; Feuerbach S
    Invest Radiol; 1998 Feb; 33(2):98-103. PubMed ID: 9493725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Computed radiography and direct radiography: influence of acquisition dose on the detection of simulated lung lesions.
    Uffmann M; Prokop M; Eisenhuber E; Fuchsjäger M; Weber M; Schaefer-Prokop C
    Invest Radiol; 2005 May; 40(5):249-56. PubMed ID: 15829821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.
    Strotzer M; Völk M; Wild T; von Landenberg P; Feuerbach S
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):512-5. PubMed ID: 10796933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Lumbar spine radiography: digital flat-panel detector versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in monkeys as a pediatric model.
    Ludwig K; Ahlers K; Wormanns D; Freund M; Bernhardt TM; Diederich S; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2003 Oct; 229(1):140-4. PubMed ID: 12925714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Fracture diagnosis with digital luminescence radiography].
    Klein HM; Wein B; Langen HJ; Glaser KH; Stargardt A; Günther RW
    Rofo; 1991 Jun; 154(6):582-6. PubMed ID: 1648759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Radiation exposure in abdominal radiography with digital luminescence radiography and conventional screen-film system: an experimental animal study].
    Seifert H; Schneider G; Kubale R; Blass G; Kramann B; Leetz HK
    Rofo; 1996 Oct; 165(4):386-91. PubMed ID: 8963053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study.
    Garmer M; Hennigs SP; Jäger HJ; Schrick F; van de Loo T; Jacobs A; Hanusch A; Christmann A; Mathias K
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Jan; 174(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 10628458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Skeletal surveys for child abuse: comparison of interpretation using digitized images and screen-film radiographs.
    Youmans DC; Don S; Hildebolt C; Shackelford GD; Luker GD; McAlister WH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Nov; 171(5):1415-9. PubMed ID: 9798889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Direct comparison of conventional and computed radiography with a dual-image recording technique.
    MacMahon H; Sanada S; Doi K; Giger M; Xu XW; Yin FF; Montner SM; Carlin M
    Radiographics; 1991 Mar; 11(2):259-68. PubMed ID: 2028063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.
    Ludwig K; Henschel A; Bernhardt TM; Lenzen H; Wormanns D; Diederich S; Heindel W
    Eur Radiol; 2003 Jun; 13(6):1316-23. PubMed ID: 12764648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.