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: 24178338)

  • 1. A comparative study of computed radiography-based mammography using digital phosphor storage plate and full field digital mammography.
    Chelliah KK; Tamanang S; Bt Elias LS; Ying KY
    Indian J Med Sci; 2013; 67(1-2):23-8. PubMed ID: 24178338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.
    Schueller G; Riedl CC; Mallek R; Eibenberger K; Langenberger H; Kaindl E; Kulinna-Cosentini C; Rudas M; Helbich TH
    Eur J Radiol; 2008 Sep; 67(3):487-96. PubMed ID: 17890036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study.
    Asbeutah AM; AlMajran AA; Brindhaban A; Asbeutah SA
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2020 Sep; 67(3):185-192. PubMed ID: 32495513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
    Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [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]  

  • 7. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
    Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.
    Yamada T; Saito M; Ishibashi T; Tsuboi M; Matsuhashi T; Sato A; Saito H; Takahashi S; Onuki K; Ouchi N
    Radiat Med; 2004; 22(6):408-12. PubMed ID: 15648457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
    James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
    Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Munzel U; Baum F; Grabbe E
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
    Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
    Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. [Comparison of dignity determination of mammographic microcalcification with two systems for digital full-field mammography with different detector resolution: a retrospective clinical study].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Adamietz B; Meier-Meitinger M; Wenkel E; Lell M; Anders K; Uder M
    Radiologe; 2011 Feb; 51(2):126-9. PubMed ID: 21069511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quantitative analysis of radiation dosage and image quality between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional synthetic mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
    Choi Y; Woo OH; Shin HS; Cho KR; Seo BK; Choi GY
    Clin Imaging; 2019; 55():12-17. PubMed ID: 30703693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Hundertmark C; Sachs J; Gruhl T; Sperner W; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1997 Aug; 167(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 9333359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
    Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Moving into the digital era: a novel experience with the first full-field digital mammography system in Malaysia.
    Ranganathan S; Faridah Y; Ng KH
    Singapore Med J; 2007 Sep; 48(9):804-7. PubMed ID: 17728959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems.
    Peters S; Hellmich M; Stork A; Kemper J; Grinstein O; Püsken M; Stahlhut L; Kinner S; Maintz D; Krug KB
    Invest Radiol; 2017 Apr; 52(4):206-215. PubMed ID: 27861206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.