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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19060439)

  • 1. [Medical imaging displays systems acceptable for soft-copy reading].
    Shimamoto K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2008 Nov; 64(11):1444-51. PubMed ID: 19060439
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
    Uematsu T; Kasami M
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Image Quality of CRT displays and the effect of brightness of diagnosis of mammograms.
    Roehrig H; Krupinski E
    J Digit Imaging; 1998 Aug; 11(3 Suppl 1):187-8. PubMed ID: 9735465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quality monitoring of soft-copy displays for medical radiography.
    Reiker GG; Gohel N; Muka E; Blaine GJ
    J Digit Imaging; 1992 Aug; 5(3):161-7. PubMed ID: 1520742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Digital mammography image quality: image display.
    Siegel E; Krupinski E; Samei E; Flynn M; Andriole K; Erickson B; Thomas J; Badano A; Seibert JA; Pisano ED
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27. PubMed ID: 17412136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improved sensitivity and specificity of mammograms by producing uniform luminance from viewboxes.
    Waynant RW; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmerak R; Suleiman O; Rowberg A
    J Digit Imaging; 1998 Aug; 11(3 Suppl 1):189-91. PubMed ID: 9735466
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures.
    Silosky MS; Marsh RM; Scherzinger AL
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Jul; 17(4):334-341. PubMed ID: 27455501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Traps in the soft-copy interpretation of the digital mammography].
    Endo T
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2012; 68(10):1385-91. PubMed ID: 23089842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Finding-specific display presets for computed radiography soft-copy reading.
    Andriole KP; Gould RG; Webb WR
    J Digit Imaging; 1999 May; 12(2 Suppl 1):3-5. PubMed ID: 10342153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital radiography image quality: image processing and display.
    Krupinski EA; Williams MB; Andriole K; Strauss KJ; Applegate K; Wyatt M; Bjork S; Seibert JA; ; ;
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2007 Jun; 4(6):389-400. PubMed ID: 17544140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations.
    Gitlin JN; Narayan AK; Mitchell CA; Akmal AM; Eisner DJ; Peterson LM; Nie D; McClintock TR
    J Digit Imaging; 2007 Mar; 20(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 17191103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.
    Uematsu T; Kasami M; Uchida Y
    Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):714-20. PubMed ID: 17729000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diagnostic digital mammography in Japan: issues to consider.
    Uematsu T
    Breast Cancer; 2010 Jul; 17(3):180-2. PubMed ID: 20082161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Image quality assurance of soft copy display systems.
    Seto E; Ursani A; Cafazzo JA; Rossos PG; Easty AC
    J Digit Imaging; 2005 Dec; 18(4):280-6. PubMed ID: 15988625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review.
    Butt A; Mahoney M; Savage NW
    Aust Dent J; 2012 Mar; 57 Suppl 1():16-23. PubMed ID: 22376093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.
    Skaane P; Skjennald A
    Radiology; 2004 Jul; 232(1):197-204. PubMed ID: 15155893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Marten K; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Skaane P; Grabbe E
    J Digit Imaging; 2003 Dec; 16(4):341-4. PubMed ID: 14749966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition.
    Williams MB; Krupinski EA; Strauss KJ; Breeden WK; Rzeszotarski MS; Applegate K; Wyatt M; Bjork S; Seibert JA
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2007 Jun; 4(6):371-88. PubMed ID: 17544139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clinical aspects of direct digital mammography.
    Parkin GJ
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 Feb; 8(1 Suppl 1):61-6. PubMed ID: 7734542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.