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: 21216322)

  • 1. Does quantity of film reading affect quality?
    Given-Wilson R; Blanks R
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):97-8. PubMed ID: 21216322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Compatibility characteristics of five radiographic films utilised in Brazilian diagnostic radiology.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; de Almeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Sep; 156(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 23651656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Further comparisons of films, screens and cassettes for mammography.
    Law J; Kirkpatrick AE
    Br J Radiol; 1990 Feb; 63(746):128-31. PubMed ID: 2310905
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reproducibility of screen-film performance tests--developing standards.
    Sluming V
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Mar; 70():233-4. PubMed ID: 9166044
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessment of screen/film combinations for cephalometric radiography.
    McNicol A; Stirrups DR
    Br J Orthod; 1985 Jul; 12(3):117-21. PubMed ID: 3860251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The selection of films and intensifying screens for use as a two-dimensional detector in a computed tomography system.
    Truscott JG; Westmacott CF; Bentley HB; Horsman A
    Radiogr Today; 1988 Nov; 54(618):31-4. PubMed ID: 3269738
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [An experimental study of the film parameters for general roentgenography].
    Gorelik FG
    Med Tekh; 2000; (5):32-6. PubMed ID: 11076363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Evaluation of radiographic image quality parameters obtained with the REX simulator.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; deAlmeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Nov; 147(4):614-8. PubMed ID: 21273198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Possible reasons for study results.
    Prabhu SP; Goddard PR
    Clin Radiol; 2004 Oct; 59(10):961; author reply 961-2. PubMed ID: 15451360
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Optimization of the thoracic radiograph. Experimental and clinical study on the use of various film/screen combinations using rare earths].
    Bergonzini R; Gallini R; Giugni U; Robecchi D; Amato M
    Radiol Med; 1986 May; 72(5):261-6. PubMed ID: 3715076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of an asymmetric screen-film combination with a conventional screen-film combination for chest radiography in 51 patients.
    Greaney T; McCoy C; Masterson J
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Sep; 70(837):929-32. PubMed ID: 9486069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Spelling out bid specifications for film purchase.
    Trefler M; Russell E; Ungaro JW
    Appl Radiol; 1981; 10(5):76, 78. PubMed ID: 10254043
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Compliance of reviewing portal images on radiographic film vs an electronic medical record.
    Chen GG; Hammoud A; Komajda M; Konski A
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2012 Jul; 9(7):495-7. PubMed ID: 22748791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reject analysis in direct digital radiography.
    Andersen ER; Jorde J; Taoussi N; Yaqoob SH; Konst B; Seierstad T
    Acta Radiol; 2012 Mar; 53(2):174-8. PubMed ID: 22287147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mammographic diagnosis of breast cancer.
    Endo T
    Gan To Kagaku Ryoho; 1996 Mar; 23 Suppl 1():8-13. PubMed ID: 8702316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.