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.
272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20092369)
1. Comparison of dry laser printer versus paper printer in full-field digital mammography. Liang Z; Du X; Guo X; Rong D; Kang R; Mao G; Liu J; Li K Acta Radiol; 2010 Apr; 51(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 20092369 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified? Schueller G; Kaindl E; Langenberger H; Stadler A; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Semturs F; Helbich TH Eur J Radiol; 2007 May; 62(2):267-72. PubMed ID: 17188829 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms. Schueller G; Kaindl E; Matzek WK; Semturs F; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Helbich TH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jan; 186(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 16357374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Comparison of full-field digital mammography workstation and conventional picture archiving and communication system in image quality and diagnostic performance. Kang BJ; Kim SH; Choi BG Clin Imaging; 2011; 35(5):336-40. PubMed ID: 21872121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. LCD versus CRT monitors for digital mammography: a comparison of observer performance for the detection of clustered microcalcifications and masses. Cha JH; Moon WK; Cho N; Lee EH; Park JS; Jang MJ Acta Radiol; 2009 Dec; 50(10):1104-8. PubMed ID: 19922305 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Quantification of Al-equivalent thickness of just visible microcalcifications in full field digital mammograms. Carton AK; Bosmans H; Vandenbroucke D; Souverijns G; Van Ongeval C; Dragusin O; Marchal G Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):2165-76. PubMed ID: 15305471 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Digital full field mammography: comparison between radiographic direct magnification and digital monitor zooming]. Fischer U; Baum F; Obenauer S; Funke M; Hermann KP; Grabbe E Radiologe; 2002 Apr; 42(4):261-4. PubMed ID: 12063732 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Gur D; Abrams GS; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Perrin RL; Rathfon GY; Sumkin JH; Zuley ML; Bandos AI AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):586-91. PubMed ID: 19620460 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Evaluation of a wavelet-based computer-assisted detection system for identifying microcalcifications in digital full-field mammography. Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Bollow M; Hermann KG; Richter K; Heinlein P; Schneider W; Hamm B Acta Radiol; 2004 Apr; 45(2):136-41. PubMed ID: 15191095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms. Ge J; Hadjiiski LM; Sahiner B; Wei J; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Chan HP Phys Med Biol; 2007 Feb; 52(4):981-1000. PubMed ID: 17264365 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography]. Diekmann S; Bick U; von Heyden H; Diekmann F Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quality of individually calibrated customary printers for assessment of typical dental diagnoses on glossy paper prints: a multicenter pilot study. Schulze RK; Schulze D; Voss K; Rottner M; Keller HP; Dollmann K; Maager B; Wedel M Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Oct; 106(4):578-86. PubMed ID: 18299235 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Wet versus dry laser printers for copying digital mammograms. Hall FM AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jun; 186(6):E22; author reply E22. PubMed ID: 16714631 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. [Soft copy versus hard copy findings in digital mammography]. Funke M; Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Fischer U; Grabbe E Radiologe; 2002 Apr; 42(4):265-9. PubMed ID: 12063733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Digital X-ray mammography: comparison of the image quality achievable with a wet laser imager, a dry infrared laser imager and a dry laser imager using direct thermography]. Krug B; Stützer H; Zähringer M; Morgenroth C; Winnekendonk G; Gossmann A; Warm M; Lackner K Rofo; 2005 Jul; 177(7):955-61. PubMed ID: 15973597 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. GPCALMA: implementation in Italian hospitals of a computer aided detection system for breast lesions by mammography examination. Lauria A Phys Med; 2009 Jun; 25(2):58-72. PubMed ID: 18602854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]