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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2738948)

  • 1. Film-screen mammography: comparison of views.
    Bassett LW; Bunnell DH; Gold RH; Jahanshahi R
    J Natl Med Assoc; 1989 Apr; 81(4):391-4. PubMed ID: 2738948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Computer-aided detection in digital mammography: comparison of craniocaudal, mediolateral oblique, and mediolateral views.
    Kim SJ; Moon WK; Cho N; Cha JH; Kim SM; Im JG
    Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 17114620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Breast radiography using the oblique projection.
    Bassett LW; Gold RH
    Radiology; 1983 Nov; 149(2):585-7. PubMed ID: 6622708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
    J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.
    Lewin JM; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE; Moss LJ; Isaacs PK; Karellas A; Cutter GR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Sep; 179(3):671-7. PubMed ID: 12185042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Screening mammography: value in women 35-39 years old.
    Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Deutch BM; Thaler HT; Lippin BS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Jul; 161(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 8517320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Influence of number of views and mammographic film density on the detection of invasive cancers: results from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Young KC; Wallis MG; Blanks RG; Moss SM
    Br J Radiol; 1997 May; 70(833):482-8. PubMed ID: 9227229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mammography for screening high-risk patients for cancer: value of including a lateral projection.
    Kreager JA; Kornguth PJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Feb; 162(2):295-7. PubMed ID: 8310913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Second-screening mammography: one versus two views per breast.
    Ikeda DM; Sickles EA
    Radiology; 1988 Sep; 168(3):651-6. PubMed ID: 3406393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Breast cancer detection: one versus two views.
    Bassett LW; Bunnell DH; Jahanshahi R; Gold RH; Arndt RD; Linsman J
    Radiology; 1987 Oct; 165(1):95-7. PubMed ID: 3628795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Latent image fading in screen-film mammography: lack of clinical relevance for batch-processed films.
    Sickles EA
    Radiology; 1995 Feb; 194(2):389-92. PubMed ID: 7824715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Baseline screening mammography: one vs two views per breast.
    Sickles EA; Weber WN; Galvin HB; Ominsky SH; Sollitto RA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1986 Dec; 147(6):1149-53. PubMed ID: 3490749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one-view in breast cancer screening.
    Hackshaw AK; Wald NJ; Michell MJ; Field S; Wilson AR
    Clin Radiol; 2000 Jun; 55(6):454-8. PubMed ID: 10873691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Pitfalls in mammography: demonstrating deep lesions.
    Bassett LW; Pagani JJ; Gold RH
    Radiology; 1980 Sep; 136(3):641-5. PubMed ID: 6250200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Incident screening cancers detected with a second mammographic view: pathological and radiological features.
    Given-Wilson RM; Blanks RG
    Clin Radiol; 1999 Nov; 54(11):724-35. PubMed ID: 10580762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mammographic dual-screen-dual-emulsion-film combination: visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Roe D; Orr J
    Radiology; 1987 Nov; 165(2):313-8. PubMed ID: 3310091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Efficacy of combined film-screen/xeromammography: preliminary report.
    Pagani JJ; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Benedetti J; Arndt RD; Linsman J; Scanlan RL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1980 Jul; 135(1):141-6. PubMed ID: 6771979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Survey of mammography practices.
    Bassett LW; Diamond JJ; Gold RH; McLelland R
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Dec; 149(6):1149-52. PubMed ID: 3318338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Breast imaging: a comparison of digital luminescence radiographs displayed on TV-monitor and film-screen mammography.
    Jarlman O; Borg A; Braw M; Kehler M; Lyttkens K; Samuelsson L
    Cancer Detect Prev; 1994; 18(5):375-81. PubMed ID: 7812984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.