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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2006213)

  • 1. Image quality index (IQI) for screen-film mammography.
    Desponds L; Depeursinge C; Grecescu M; Hessler C; Samiri A; Valley JF
    Phys Med Biol; 1991 Jan; 36(1):19-33. PubMed ID: 2006213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Imaging characteristics of different mammographic screens.
    Kuhn H; Knüpfer W
    Med Phys; 1992; 19(2):449-57. PubMed ID: 1584145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The use of a contrast-detail test object in the optimization of optical density in mammography.
    Robson KJ; Kotre CJ; Faulkner K
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Mar; 68(807):277-82. PubMed ID: 7735767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. [Film-screen combinations for mammography].
    Säbel M; Aichinger H
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1991 May; 1(3):105-12. PubMed ID: 1878377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme.
    Monnin P; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimizing optical density of a Kodak mammography film-screen combination with standard-cycle processing.
    McParland BJ; Boyd MM; al Yousef K
    Br J Radiol; 1998 Sep; 71(849):950-3. PubMed ID: 10195010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography.
    Barnes GT; Chakraborty DP
    Radiology; 1982 Dec; 145(3):815-21. PubMed ID: 7146416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of image quality on 28 mammography X-ray sets in the UK.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Nov; 70(839):1131-8. PubMed ID: 9536904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Films, screens and cassettes for mammography.
    Law J; Kirkpatrick AE
    Br J Radiol; 1989 Feb; 62(734):163-7. PubMed ID: 2924096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [The technical support of mammography].
    Rozhkova NI; Chikirdin EG; Riudiger IuG; Kochetova GP; Lisachenko IV; Iakobs OE
    Med Tekh; 2000; (5):45-7. PubMed ID: 11076366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Mammography screen-film selection: individual facility testing technique.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett L; Gold RH; Parkinson B
    Med Phys; 1992; 19(5):1195-9. PubMed ID: 1435598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of four mammographic image quality test objects.
    Payne M; Lawinski CP
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Apr; 65(772):339-41. PubMed ID: 1581793
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quality control in mammography.
    Hendrick RE; Botsco M; Plott CM
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1041-57. PubMed ID: 7480654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Simple test pattern for mammographic screen-film contact measurement.
    Tanner RL
    Radiology; 1991 Mar; 178(3):883-4. PubMed ID: 1994437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
    Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Measurement of objective parameters of image quality of film-screen combinations].
    Angerstein W; Wolf M
    Radiol Diagn (Berl); 1986; 27(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 3961142
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of two screen-film combinations in contact and magnification mammography: detectability of microcalcifications.
    Oestmann JW; Kopans DB; Linetsky L; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; White G; Swann C; Kelley JE; Johnson LL
    Radiology; 1988 Sep; 168(3):657-9. PubMed ID: 3406394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments.
    Segui JA; Zhao W
    Med Phys; 2006 Oct; 33(10):3711-22. PubMed ID: 17089837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.