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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1987598)

  • 1. Increased radiation dose at mammography due to prolonged exposure, delayed processing, and increased film darkening.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Chow S
    Radiology; 1991 Feb; 178(2):387-91. PubMed ID: 1987598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. New mammography screen/film combinations: imaging characteristics and radiation dose.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Zheutlin J; Gornbein JA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Apr; 154(4):713-9. PubMed ID: 2107663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mammographic film-processor temperature, development time, and chemistry: effect on dose, contrast, and noise.
    Kimme-Smith C; Rothschild PA; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Moler C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Jan; 152(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 2783288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Value of increasing film processing time to reduce radiation dose during mammography.
    Skubic SE; Yagan R; Oravec D; Shah Z
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Dec; 155(6):1189-93. PubMed ID: 2122664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of mammography screen-film combinations.
    Schueler BA; Gray JE; Gisvold JJ
    Radiology; 1992 Sep; 184(3):629-34. PubMed ID: 1509043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Variation of the sensitometric characteristics of seven mammographic films with processing conditions.
    Tsalafoutas IA; Dimakopoulou AD; Koulentianos ED; Serefoglou AN; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Aug; 77(920):666-71. PubMed ID: 15326045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Film mammography: new low radiation technology.
    Chang CH; Sibala JL; Martin NL; Riley RC
    Radiology; 1976 Oct; 121(1):215-7. PubMed ID: 959542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control.
    Friedrich MA
    Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
    Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Processing of mammographic films: technical and clinical considerations.
    Tabar L; Haus AG
    Radiology; 1989 Oct; 173(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 2781032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of radiation dose, focal spot, and automatic exposure of newer film-screen mammography units.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Nov; 149(5):913-7. PubMed ID: 3499794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of image quality and mean absorbed dose to the breast for two mammographic films.
    Persliden J; Fransson V; Vitak B; Fagerberg G
    Acta Radiol; 1993 Jul; 34(4):351-5. PubMed ID: 8318296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography].
    Säbel M; Aichinger U; Schulz-Wendtland R
    Rofo; 2001 Feb; 173(2):79-91. PubMed ID: 11253092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality.
    Braeuning MP; Cooper HW; O'Brien S; Burns CB; Washburn DB; Schell MJ; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70. PubMed ID: 10480042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Optimizing techniques in screen-film mammography.
    Hendrick RE; Berns EA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 38(4):701-18, viii. PubMed ID: 10943272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Magnification mammography: evaluation of screen-film and xeroradiographic techniques.
    Haus AG; Paulus DD; Dodd GD; Cowart RW; Bencomo J
    Radiology; 1979 Oct; 133(1):223-6. PubMed ID: 472295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination.
    Wojtasek DA; Teixidor HS; Govoni AF; Gareen IF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Feb; 154(2):265-70. PubMed ID: 2105011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Characterization of the reciprocity law failure in three mammography screen-film systems.
    de Almeida A; Sobol WT; Barnes GT
    Med Phys; 1999 May; 26(5):682-8. PubMed ID: 10360527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of a new mammographic film: methods and considerations.
    Tsalafoutas OA; Kolovos CA; Tsapaki V; Betsou S; Koliakou E; Maniatis PN; Xenofos S
    Health Phys; 2008 Apr; 94(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 18332725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.