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 *

498 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22149832)

  • 21. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
    Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
    Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
    Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens.
    Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH
    Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography.
    Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Karssemeijer N
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1712-8. PubMed ID: 12906188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
    Lalji UC; Jeukens CR; Houben I; Nelemans PJ; van Engen RE; van Wylick E; Beets-Tan RG; Wildberger JE; Paulis LE; Lobbes MB
    Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2813-20. PubMed ID: 25813015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effect of area x-ray beam equalization on image quality and dose in digital mammography.
    Wong J; Xu T; Husain A; Le H; Molloi S
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Aug; 49(16):3539-57. PubMed ID: 15446786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
    Baydush AH; Floyd CE
    Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. On the noise variance of a digital mammography system.
    Burgess A
    Med Phys; 2004 Jul; 31(7):1987-95. PubMed ID: 15305451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.
    Shafer CM; Samei E; Lo JY
    Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):1004-16. PubMed ID: 20384236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.
    Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Averbukh A; Moran C; Berns EA; Yaffe MJ; Herman B; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9. PubMed ID: 20093597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers.
    Sadaf A; Crystal P; Scaranelo A; Helbich T
    Eur J Radiol; 2011 Mar; 77(3):457-61. PubMed ID: 19875260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography.
    Kaufhold J; Thomas JA; Eberhard JW; Galbo CE; Trotter DE
    Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1867-80. PubMed ID: 12201434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Quantitative evaluation of dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging.
    Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Jun; 49(12):2563-76. PubMed ID: 15272674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
    Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
    Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
    Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
    Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Performance evaluation of contrast-detail in full field digital mammography systems using ideal (Hotelling) observer vs. conventional automated analysis of CDMAM images for quality control of contrast-detail characteristics.
    Delakis I; Wise R; Morris L; Kulama E
    Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):741-6. PubMed ID: 25735660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Practical application of a scan-rotate equalization geometry to mammography.
    Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB
    Med Phys; 1996 Dec; 23(12):1987-96. PubMed ID: 8994163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.