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 *

79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3498340)

  • 1. Evaluation of dry silver hard copies in digital radiography.
    Trefler M; Yrizarry JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Oct; 149(4):853-6. PubMed ID: 3498340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The gray-scale ink-jet printer: value in making hard copies of digital images.
    Combs MJ; Snell J; Cail WS; Maier T; Buck DA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Jan; 164(1):225-7. PubMed ID: 7998544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Digital film processing: a comparison of wet and dry processing methods.
    Health Devices; 1998 Aug; 27(8):293-8. PubMed ID: 9743901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of paper print and soft copy reading in plain paediatric radiographs.
    Maydell AT; Andronikou S; Ackermann C; Bezuidenhout AF
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Oct; 53(5):459-66. PubMed ID: 19788481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Demonstration of digital radiographs by means of ink jet-printed paper copies: pilot study.
    Kirkhorn T; Kehler M; Nilsson J; Lyttkens K; Andersson B; Holmer NG
    J Digit Imaging; 1992 Nov; 5(4):246-51. PubMed ID: 1457540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the image quality of ink-jet printed paper copies of digital chest radiographs as compared with film: a receiver operating characteristic study.
    Lyttkens K; Kirkhorn T; Kehler M; Andersson B; Ebbesen A; Hochbergs P; Jarlman O; Lindberg CG; Holmer NG
    J Digit Imaging; 1994 May; 7(2):61-8. PubMed ID: 8075185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
    Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Continuous image recording using gray-tone, dry-process silver paper.
    Lee KR; Dwyer SJ; Anderson WH; Betz D; Faszold S; Preston DF; Robinson RG; Templeton AW
    Radiology; 1981 May; 139(2):493-6. PubMed ID: 7220895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Thirty-five millimeter versus digital photography: comparison of photographic quality and clinical evaluation.
    Wall S; Kazahaya K; Becker SS; Becker DG
    Facial Plast Surg; 1999; 15(2):101-9. PubMed ID: 11816120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Contrast mapping and evaluation for electronic X-ray images on CRT display monitor.
    Suzuki J; Furukawa I; Ono S; Kitamura M; Ando Y
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 1997 Dec; 16(6):772-84. PubMed ID: 9533578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Storage phosphor radiographs vs conventional films: interpreters' perceptions of diagnostic quality.
    Fuhrman CR; Gur D; Good B; Rockette H; Cooperstein LA; Feist JH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 May; 150(5):1011-4. PubMed ID: 3258701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Digital cameras: a practical solution for radiologists (review)].
    Oztürk A; Oztürk E
    Tani Girisim Radyol; 2003 Dec; 9(4):401-6. PubMed ID: 14730946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Real photographic prints from digital images.
    Ratner D
    Dermatol Surg; 2000 Aug; 26(8):799-800. PubMed ID: 10940069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Digital selenium radiography: a comparison of the picture quality of thoracic images in normal and reduced image formats based on the structural anatomical details].
    Zähringer M; Krug B; Kamm KF; Jung G; Dölken W; Wassmer G; Lackner K
    Rofo; 1998 Jul; 169(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 9711280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Image quality of paper prints compared to film copies in CT investigations].
    Bley T; Burger D; Ghanem N; Thürl C; Saueressig U; Kotter E; Langer M
    Rofo; 2002 Apr; 174(4):423-5. PubMed ID: 11960403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Web-based grading of compressed stereoscopic digital photography versus standard slide film photography for the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy.
    Rudnisky CJ; Tennant MT; Weis E; Ting A; Hinz BJ; Greve MD
    Ophthalmology; 2007 Sep; 114(9):1748-54. PubMed ID: 17368543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Digital image intensifier radiography--one year's experience with a Polytron system].
    Busch HP; Lehmann KJ; Georgi M
    Rofo; 1989 Sep; 151(3):268-73. PubMed ID: 2552516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of new image processing conditions for digital mammograms from Fuji computed radiography.
    Kano H; Endo T; Ikeda M; Oiwa M; Ishigaki T
    Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):131-8. PubMed ID: 16967779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bedside chest radiography using digital luminescence. A comparison between digital radiographs reviewed on a personal computer and as hard-copies.
    Lyttkens K; Andersson B; Kehler M; Lindberg L
    Acta Radiol; 1992 Sep; 33(5):427-30. PubMed ID: 1389649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of digital cameras: features essential for the orthopaedic surgeon.
    Andres BM; Khanna AJ; Wenz JF; Faust AF; Frassica FJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2004 Apr; (421):10-6. PubMed ID: 15123919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.