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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23089842)

  • 1. [Traps in the soft-copy interpretation of the digital mammography].
    Endo T
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2012; 68(10):1385-91. PubMed ID: 23089842
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.
    Uematsu T; Kasami M; Uchida Y
    Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):714-20. PubMed ID: 17729000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital mammography.
    D'Orsi CJ
    Curr Womens Health Rep; 2002 Apr; 2(2):124-7. PubMed ID: 12116601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
    Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Digital mammography image quality: image display.
    Siegel E; Krupinski E; Samei E; Flynn M; Andriole K; Erickson B; Thomas J; Badano A; Seibert JA; Pisano ED
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27. PubMed ID: 17412136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitors and 5-megapixel liquid crystal monitors for soft-copy reading in full-field digital mammography.
    Schueller G; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Pinker K; Memarsadeghi M; Weber M; Helbich TH
    Eur J Radiol; 2010 Oct; 76(1):68-72. PubMed ID: 19481396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography.
    Pisano ED; Zuley M; Baum JK; Marques HS
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2007 Sep; 45(5):813-30, vi. PubMed ID: 17888771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Diagnostic performance in differentiation of breast lesion on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel LCD monitor, and 5-megapixel LCD monitor.
    Kamitani T; Yabuuchi H; Matsuo Y; Setoguchi T; Sakai S; Okafuji T; Sunami S; Hatakenaka M; Ishii N; Kubo M; Tokunaga E; Yamamoto H; Honda H
    Clin Imaging; 2011; 35(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 21872122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.
    Pisano ED; Cole EB; Kistner EO; Muller KE; Hemminger BM; Brown ML; Johnston RE; Kuzmiak CM; Braeuning MP; Freimanis RI; Soo MS; Baker JA; Walsh R
    Radiology; 2002 May; 223(2):483-8. PubMed ID: 11997557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Diagnostic digital mammography in Japan: issues to consider.
    Uematsu T
    Breast Cancer; 2010 Jul; 17(3):180-2. PubMed ID: 20082161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review.
    Skaane P
    Acta Radiol; 2009 Jan; 50(1):3-14. PubMed ID: 19037825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Marten K; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Skaane P; Grabbe E
    J Digit Imaging; 2003 Dec; 16(4):341-4. PubMed ID: 14749966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Solari M; Barke L; Reddy D; Wolfman J; Segal L; DeLeon P; Benjamin S; Willis L
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):38-41. PubMed ID: 16794152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations.
    Gitlin JN; Narayan AK; Mitchell CA; Akmal AM; Eisner DJ; Peterson LM; Nie D; McClintock TR
    J Digit Imaging; 2007 Mar; 20(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 17191103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.
    Cole EB; Pisano ED; Zeng D; Muller K; Aylward SR; Park S; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Pavic D; Walsh R; Baker J; Gimenez EI; Freimanis R
    Acad Radiol; 2005 May; 12(5):585-95. PubMed ID: 15866131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Medical imaging displays systems acceptable for soft-copy reading].
    Shimamoto K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2008 Nov; 64(11):1444-51. PubMed ID: 19060439
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital mammography: an update.
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Fuchsjäger M; Wacker T; Hermann KP
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Nov; 72(2):258-65. PubMed ID: 19592186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.