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 *

41 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3969462)

  • 1. Conspicuity and uncertainty in the radiographic detection of lesions.
    Revesz G
    Radiology; 1985 Mar; 154(3):625-8. PubMed ID: 3969462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error.
    Kundel HL; Revesz G
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1976 Jun; 126(6):1233-8. PubMed ID: 179387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. ROC and contrast detail image evaluation tests compared.
    Kelsey CA; Moseley RD; Garcia JF; Mettler FA; Parker TW; Juhl JH
    Radiology; 1985 Mar; 154(3):629-31. PubMed ID: 3969463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Method of contrast densitometry of lung radiographs].
    Lupşa M
    Rev Ig Bacteriol Virusol Parazitol Epidemiol Pneumoftiziol Pneumoftiziol; 1984; 33(4):351-60. PubMed ID: 6097994
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Spatial resolution requirements for digital chest radiographs: an ROC study of observer performance in selected cases.
    Lams PM; Cocklin ML
    Radiology; 1986 Jan; 158(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 3940365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Detectability of pulmonary coin lesions: a comparative assessment of the image quality of a storage phosphor system and a conventional film screen system].
    Hofmann-Preiss K; Reichler B; Friedel N; Seyferth W
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1993 May; 3(3):152-5. PubMed ID: 8518304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Thoracic radiographs with the AMBER system. A comparison of the diagnostic image quality of film-screen and storage-phosphor radiographs on the grid-partition stand and the AMBER system].
    Busch HP; Hartmann J; Freund MC; Lehmann KJ; Georgi M; Richter K
    Rofo; 1992 Mar; 156(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 1550921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Digital chest imaging: comparison of two film image digitizers with a classification task.
    Kundel HL; Mezrich JL; Brickman I; Siegel R; Miller WT; Epstein DM; Gefter WB; Arenson RL; Seshadri SB; Khalsa S
    Radiology; 1987 Dec; 165(3):747-52. PubMed ID: 3685354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of unsharp masking and slit scanning techniques in chest radiography.
    Armstrong JD; Sorenson JA; Nelson JA; Tocino I; Lester PD; Janes JO; Niklason LT; Stanish W
    Radiology; 1983 May; 147(2):351-6. PubMed ID: 6340155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [The application of fractal technics for the enhancement of radiographic images].
    Antognetti PF; Dellepiane S; Serpico SB; Vernazza G
    Radiol Med; 1989 May; 77(5):535-9. PubMed ID: 2748966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of optical unsharp masking and contrast enhancement of low-scatter chest radiographs.
    Sorenson JA; Mitchell CR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Aug; 149(2):275-81. PubMed ID: 3496751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Evaluation of an automated adaptive unsharp masking technique in digital chest radiographs].
    Abe K; Katsuragawa S; Sasaki Y
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1992 Feb; 52(2):164-71. PubMed ID: 1561056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Interpretation of subtle interstitial lung abnormalities: conventional versus film-digitized radiography.
    Kido S; Ikezoe J; Takeuchi N; Kondoh H; Johkoh T; Kohno N; Tomiyama N; Yamagami H; Naito H; Arisawa J
    Radiology; 1994 Jul; 192(1):171-6. PubMed ID: 8208932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digitizing pediatric chest radiographs: comparison of low-cost, commercial off-the-shelf technologies.
    Ruess L; Uyehara CF; Shiels KC; Cho KH; O'Connor SC; Person DA; Whitton RK
    Pediatr Radiol; 2001 Dec; 31(12):841-7. PubMed ID: 11727017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Irreversible data compression in chest imaging using computed radiography: an evaluation.
    Mori T; Nakata H
    J Thorac Imaging; 1994; 9(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 8114161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Chest radiography with a shaped filter at 140 kVp: its diagnostic accuracy compared with that of standard radiographs.
    Guilbeau JC; Mazoyer BM; Pruvost P; Verrey B; Grenier P
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 May; 150(5):1007-10. PubMed ID: 3258700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of varying spatial resolution on the detectability of diffuse pulmonary nodules. Assessment with digitized conventional radiographs.
    Foley WD; Wilson CR; Keyes GS; DiBianca FA; Scanlon GT; Schleuter D; Lawson TL
    Radiology; 1981 Oct; 141(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 7291538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. One-shot dual-energy subtraction chest imaging with computed radiography: clinical evaluation of film images.
    Ishigaki T; Sakuma S; Ikeda M
    Radiology; 1988 Jul; 168(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 3289096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [ROC (receiver operating characteristic) study for the recognition of liver lesions on the computer tomogram].
    Rockstroh G; Rotte KH; Kriedemann E; Cobet H; Boitz F; Cimanowski N
    Digitale Bilddiagn; 1985 Jun; 5(2):70-3. PubMed ID: 4017439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital radiography of subtle pulmonary abnormalities: an ROC study of the effect of pixel size on observer performance.
    MacMahon H; Vyborny CJ; Metz CE; Doi K; Sabeti V; Solomon SL
    Radiology; 1986 Jan; 158(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 3940383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.