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: 19498251)

  • 1. [Observer performance of PACS-oriented digitized mammography in the detection of fibrils, microcalcifications, and masses: a phantom study].
    Yamada S; Ueguchi T; Mihara N; Matsuzawa H; Sukenobu Y; Komizu M
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 May; 65(5):620-5. PubMed ID: 19498251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation.
    Garg AS; Rapelyea JA; Rechtman LR; Torrente J; Bittner RB; Coffey CM; Brem RF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1436-8. PubMed ID: 21606310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Film-screen magnification versus electronic magnification and enhancement of digitized contact mammograms in the assessment of subtle microcalcifications.
    Perisinakis K; Damilakis J; Kontogiannis E; Gourtsoyiannis N
    Invest Radiol; 2001 Dec; 36(12):726-33. PubMed ID: 11753144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [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. Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.
    Yamada T; Suzuki A; Uchiyama N; Ohuchi N; Takahashi S
    Eur Radiol; 2008 Nov; 18(11):2363-9. PubMed ID: 18491108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography.
    Higashida Y; Moribe N; Morita K; Katsuda N; Hatemura M; Takada T; Takahashi M; Yamashita J
    Radiology; 1992 May; 183(2):483-6. PubMed ID: 1561354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Phantom-based comparison of conventional versus phase-contrast mammography for LCD soft-copy diagnosis.
    Ihori A; Fujita N; Sugiura A; Yasuda N; Kodera Y
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2013 Jul; 8(4):621-33. PubMed ID: 23263885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display.
    Smathers RL; Bush E; Drace J; Stevens M; Sommer FG; Brown BW; Karras B
    Radiology; 1986 Jun; 159(3):673-7. PubMed ID: 3704149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
    Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study.
    Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Soeda H; Matsuo Y; Okafuji T; Sakai S; Furuya A; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Honda H
    Eur Radiol; 2007 May; 17(5):1365-71. PubMed ID: 17093968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study.
    Good WF; Sumkin JH; Ganott M; Hardesty L; Holbert B; Johns CM; Klym AH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Dec; 175(6):1573-6. PubMed ID: 11090378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
    Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Digital mammography: comparative performance of color LCD and monochrome CRT displays.
    Samei E; Poolla A; Ulissey MJ; Lewin JM
    Acad Radiol; 2007 May; 14(5):539-46. PubMed ID: 17434067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
    Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Spatial resolution in digital mammography.
    Karssemeijer N; Frieling JT; Hendriks JH
    Invest Radiol; 1993 May; 28(5):413-9. PubMed ID: 8496034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.
    Yakabe M; Sakai S; Yabuuchi H; Matsuo Y; Kamitani T; Setoguchi T; Cho M; Masuda M; Sasaki M
    J Digit Imaging; 2010 Oct; 23(5):520-6. PubMed ID: 19415382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.