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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33307458)

  • 21. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.
    Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC
    Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
    Song SE; Seo BK; Yie A; Ku BK; Kim HY; Cho KR; Chung HH; Lee SH; Hwang KW
    Korean J Radiol; 2012; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Content Validation of a Home Parenteral Nutrition-Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire.
    Miller TL; Greene GW; Lofgren I; Greaney ML; Winkler MF
    Nutr Clin Pract; 2017 Dec; 32(6):806-813. PubMed ID: 28829676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The impact of subjective image quality evaluation in mammography.
    Alukić E; Homar K; Pavić M; Žibert J; Mekiš N
    Radiography (Lond); 2023 May; 29(3):526-532. PubMed ID: 36913787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
    He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
    Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Missed breast carcinoma; why and how to avoid?
    Kamal RM; Abdel Razek NM; Hassan MA; Shaalan MA
    J Egypt Natl Canc Inst; 2007 Sep; 19(3):178-94. PubMed ID: 19190691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors.
    Skaane P
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1999; 420():1-47. PubMed ID: 10693544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Development of the Informed Choice in Mammography Screening Questionnaire (IMQ): factor structure, reliability, and validity.
    Reder M; Berens EM; Spallek J; Kolip P
    BMC Psychol; 2019 Mar; 7(1):17. PubMed ID: 30890190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Evaluation of the applicability of BI-RADS® MRI for the interpretation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
    Travieso-Aja MM; Maldonado-Saluzzi D; Naranjo-Santana P; Fernández-Ruiz C; Severino-Rondón W; Rodríguez Rodríguez M; Luzardo OP
    Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2019; 61(6):477-488. PubMed ID: 31262509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Shaheen E; Van Ongeval C; Zanca F; Cockmartin L; Marshall N; Jacobs J; Young KC; R Dance D; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6659-71. PubMed ID: 22149848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Quantitative comparison of clustered microcalcifications in for-presentation and for-processing mammograms in full-field digital mammography.
    Wang J; Nishikawa RM; Yang Y
    Med Phys; 2017 Jul; 44(7):3726-3738. PubMed ID: 28477395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Content validity index in scale development].
    Shi J; Mo X; Sun Z
    Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2012 Feb; 37(2):152-5. PubMed ID: 22561427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Development and validation of an instrument assessing women's satisfaction with screening mammography in an organized breast cancer screening program.
    Bairati I; Turcotte S; Doray G; Belleau F; Grégoire L
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2014 Jan; 14():9. PubMed ID: 24397342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study.
    Svahn T; Andersson I; Chakraborty D; Svensson S; Ikeda D; Förnvik D; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Zackrisson S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):113-7. PubMed ID: 20228048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.
    Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Averbukh A; Moran C; Berns EA; Yaffe MJ; Herman B; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9. PubMed ID: 20093597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Development and validation of a new tool to identify factors that influence users' motivation toward the use of teleconsultation systems: A modified Delphi study.
    Almathami HKY; Win KT; Vlahu-Gjorgievska E
    Int J Med Inform; 2022 Jan; 157():104618. PubMed ID: 34741893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Mammographic Phantoms Frequently Used to Determine Image Quality: A Comparative Study.
    AlKhalifah K; Brindabhan A
    J Allied Health; 2017; 46(4):239-242. PubMed ID: 29202159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
    Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
    Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Use of Full-quality DICOM Images Compared to Minimally Compressed Mammograms in JPEG Format for Radiology Training: A Study From Radiologist and Radiographer Perspectives.
    Trieu PDY; Barron M; Lewis SJ
    Acad Radiol; 2023 Aug; 30(8):1748-1755. PubMed ID: 36567143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.