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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23603122)

  • 1. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
    Bor D; Akdur K
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
    Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Lell M; Kuchar I; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mammography with synchrotron radiation: phase-detection techniques.
    Arfelli F; Bonvicini V; Bravin A; Cantatore G; Castelli E; Palma LD; Michiel MD; Fabrizioli M; Longo R; Menk RH; Olivo A; Pani S; Pontoni D; Poropat P; Prest M; Rashevsky A; Ratti M; Rigon L; Tromba G; Vacchi A; Vallazza E; Zanconati F
    Radiology; 2000 Apr; 215(1):286-93. PubMed ID: 10751500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Recent advances in screen-film mammography.
    Haus AG
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):913-28. PubMed ID: 3306773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques.
    Kheddache S; Thilander-Klang A; Lanhede B; Månsson LG; Bjurstam N; Ackerholm P; Björneld L
    Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(4):591-7. PubMed ID: 10354868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of a new mammographic film: methods and considerations.
    Tsalafoutas OA; Kolovos CA; Tsapaki V; Betsou S; Koliakou E; Maniatis PN; Xenofos S
    Health Phys; 2008 Apr; 94(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 18332725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
    Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
    Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality.
    Braeuning MP; Cooper HW; O'Brien S; Burns CB; Washburn DB; Schell MJ; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70. PubMed ID: 10480042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
    Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mammographic phantom studies with synchrotron radiation.
    Johnston RE; Washburn D; Pisano E; Burns C; Thomlinson WC; Chapman LD; Arfelli F; Gmur NF; Zhong Z; Sayers D
    Radiology; 1996 Sep; 200(3):659-63. PubMed ID: 8756911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Signal-to-noise properties of mammographic film-screen systems.
    Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 1985; 12(1):32-9. PubMed ID: 3974523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
    Gagne RM; Gallas BD; Myers KJ
    Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
    Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
    Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
    Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
    Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Optimum processing of mammographic film.
    Sprawls P; Kitts EL
    Radiographics; 1996 Mar; 16(2):349-54. PubMed ID: 8966292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Experimental study on image quality when using screens in mammography (author's transl)].
    Maurer HJ; Goos F
    Rofo; 1979 Mar; 130(3):347-51. PubMed ID: 155580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.