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 *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1955204)

  • 1. Image quality determines differences in reading performance and perceived image quality with CRT and hard-copy displays.
    Jorna GC; Snyder HL
    Hum Factors; 1991 Aug; 33(4):459-69. PubMed ID: 1955204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Hard-copy versus soft-copy image reading for detection of ureteral stones on abdominal radiography.
    Ueda K; Iwasaki S; Nagasawa M; Sueyoshi S; Takahama J; Ide K; Kichikawa K
    Radiat Med; 2003; 21(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 14632296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. [Hard-copy (film) versus soft-copy (CRT) reading performance between compressed and uncompressed images: SOLs in abdominal CT images].
    Ando Y; Tsukamoto N; Kawaguchi O; Kitamura M; Kunieda E; Kubo A; Ogasawara K; Kinosada Y; Maeda T; Kozuka T
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1999 Sep; 59(11):521-5. PubMed ID: 10536448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Visual performance on CRT screens and hard-copy displays.
    Harpster JL; Freivalds A; Shulman GL; Leibowitz HW
    Hum Factors; 1989 Jun; 31(3):247-57. PubMed ID: 2793189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Resolution and noise measurements of five CRT and LCD medical displays.
    Saunders RS; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):308-19. PubMed ID: 16532935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Soft copy using image processing in place of hard copy for detection of subtle pulmonary lesions: is it actually cost-effective?
    Abe K; Kosuda S; Iwasaki Y; Hama Y; Kaji T; Kusano S; Ozeki Y; Ichihara K
    Radiat Med; 2004; 22(6):379-83. PubMed ID: 15648452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reading on LCD vs e-Ink displays: effects on fatigue and visual strain.
    Siegenthaler E; Bochud Y; Bergamin P; Wurtz P
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2012 Sep; 32(5):367-74. PubMed ID: 22762257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Receiver-operating-characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hard-copy film vs 2K x 2K soft-copy images.
    Razavi M; Sayre JW; Taira RK; Simons M; Huang HK; Chuang KS; Rahbar G; Kangarloo H
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Feb; 158(2):443-8. PubMed ID: 1729805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions.
    Krupinski EA; Johnson J; Roehrig H; Nafziger J; Lubin J
    Acad Radiol; 2005 Aug; 12(8):957-64. PubMed ID: 16023384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Proposal of a quality-index or metric for soft copy display systems: contrast sensitivity study.
    Wang J; Compton K; Peng Q
    J Digit Imaging; 2003 Jun; 16(2):185-202. PubMed ID: 12964056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Ambient illumination revisited: a new adaptation-based approach for optimizing medical imaging reading environments.
    Chawla AS; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2007 Jan; 34(1):81-90. PubMed ID: 17278493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
    Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
    Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of vibration on visual display terminal work performance.
    Hsieh YH; Lin CJ; Chen HC
    Percept Mot Skills; 2007 Dec; 105(3 Pt 2):1055-8. PubMed ID: 18380100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Implementing the DICOM Grayscale Standard Display Function for mixed hard- and soft-copy operations.
    Thompson SK; Willis CE; Krugh KT; Jeff Shepard S; McEnery KW
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():27-32. PubMed ID: 12105694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of display resolution on visual performance.
    Ziefle M
    Hum Factors; 1998 Dec; 40(4):554-68. PubMed ID: 9974229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Intra- and interobserver agreement and performance score of breast phantom image interpretation: influence of ambient room lighting levels.
    Koyama K; Shimamoto K; Ikeda M; Muramoto H; Satake H; Sawaki A; Kato K; Fukushima H; Ishigaki T
    Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):147-53. PubMed ID: 16967781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.