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 *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3106421)

  • 1. Mathematical modeling of fetal growth. IV. Evaluation of trunk growth using the abdominal profile area.
    Rossavik IK; Deter RL; Hadlock FP
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1987 Jan; 15(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 3106421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mathematical modeling of fetal growth. III. Evaluation of head growth using the head profile area.
    Rossavik IK; Deter RL; Hadlock FP
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1987 Jan; 15(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 3106419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mathematical modeling of fetal growth: II. Head cube (A), abdominal cube (B) and their ratio (A/B).
    Rossavik IK; Deter RL
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1984; 12(9):535-45. PubMed ID: 6439747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mathematical modeling of fetal growth: I. Basic principles.
    Rossavik IK; Deter RL
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1984; 12(9):529-33. PubMed ID: 6439746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Fitting growth curves to head and abdomen measurements of the fetus: a multicentric study.
    Todros T; Ferrazzi E; Groli C; Nicolini U; Parodi L; Pavoni M; Zorzoli A; Zucca S
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1987 Feb; 15(2):95-105. PubMed ID: 3134408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Three-dimensional US assessment of hepatic volume, head circumference, and abdominal circumference in healthy and growth-restricted fetuses.
    Boito SM; Laudy JA; Struijk PC; Stijnen T; Wladimiroff JW
    Radiology; 2002 Jun; 223(3):661-5. PubMed ID: 12034932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fetal head and abdominal circumferences: effect of profile shape on the accuracy of ellipse equations.
    Shields JR; Medearis AL; Bear MB
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1987 May; 15(4):241-4. PubMed ID: 3134423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mathematic modeling of fetal growth: development of individual growth curve standards.
    Deter RL; Rossavik IK; Harrist RB; Hadlock FP
    Obstet Gynecol; 1986 Aug; 68(2):156-61. PubMed ID: 3526216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fetal programming of infant neuromotor development: the generation R study.
    van Batenburg-Eddes T; de Groot L; Steegers EA; Hofman A; Jaddoe VW; Verhulst FC; Tiemeier H
    Pediatr Res; 2010 Feb; 67(2):132-7. PubMed ID: 19809381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Longitudinal distance standards of fetal growth. Intrauterine and Infant Longitudinal Growth Study: IILGS.
    Di Battista E; Bertino E; Benso L; Fabris C; Aicardi G; Pagliano M; Bossi A; De Biasio P; Milani S
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2000 Mar; 79(3):165-73. PubMed ID: 10716296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing the Hadlock fetal growth standard to the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development racial/ethnic standard for the prediction of neonatal morbidity and small for gestational age.
    Blue NR; Beddow ME; Savabi M; Katukuri VR; Chao CR
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Nov; 219(5):474.e1-474.e12. PubMed ID: 30118689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Refined fetal abdominal growth assessment in normal pregnancy: Part I. Abdominal anteroposterior diameter.
    Yu CH; Yao BL; Chang CH; Ko HC; Lin YS; Chang FM
    Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei); 1997 Mar; 59(3):164-70. PubMed ID: 9198291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Normal growth of the fetal biparietal diameter and the abdominal diameter in a longitudinal study. An evaluation of the two parameters in predicting fetal weight.
    Eriksen PS; Secher NJ; Weis-Bentzon M
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1985; 64(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 3883691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Abnormal growth patterns in diabetes in pregnancy: a longitudinal study.
    Langer O; Kozlowski S; Brustman L
    Isr J Med Sci; 1991; 27(8-9):516-23. PubMed ID: 1960050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fetal head and abdominal circumferences: ellipse calculations versus planimetry.
    Shields JR; Medearis AL; Bear MB
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1987 May; 15(4):237-9. PubMed ID: 3134422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Teasing out the effects of different fetal growth trajectories: commentary on the article by van Batenburg-Eddes et al. on page 132.
    Marlow N
    Pediatr Res; 2010 Feb; 67(2):128-9; discussion 132. PubMed ID: 20081485
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Estimated fetal weight: applicability to small- and large-for-gestational-age fetus.
    Miller JM; Kissling GA; Brown HL; Gabert HA
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1988 Feb; 16(2):95-7. PubMed ID: 3130410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mathematical modeling of fetal splenic growth: use of the Rossavik growth model.
    Hata T; Deter RL; Aoki S; Makihara K; Hata K; Kitao M
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1992 Jun; 20(5):321-7. PubMed ID: 1316374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of measurement variability on Rossavik growth model specification and prediction of growth outcome at birth.
    Simon NV; Deter RL; Kofinas AD; Grow DR
    J Clin Ultrasound; 1992 May; 20(4):239-45. PubMed ID: 1315797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Use of femur length/abdominal circumference ratio in detecting the macrosomic fetus.
    Hadlock FP; Harrist RB; Fearneyhough TC; Deter RL; Park SK; Rossavik IK
    Radiology; 1985 Feb; 154(2):503-5. PubMed ID: 3880915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.