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 *

86 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6607654)

  • 1. Comparative image quality of 105 mm and conventional spot films.
    Weaver KE; Trembley CA; Lewicki AM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1984 Mar; 142(3):615-8. PubMed ID: 6607654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Digital image intensifier radiography: imaging qualities and initial use in the gastrointestinal area].
    Busch HP; Strauss LG; Prager P; Georgi M
    Digitale Bilddiagn; 1986 Jun; 6(2):49-55. PubMed ID: 3524964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [A urological x-ray study table with a 36-cm x-ray image intensifier].
    Melchior H; Lang G
    Urologe A; 1983 Jan; 22(1):49-55. PubMed ID: 6220504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Image-receptor performance: a comparison of Trophy RVG UI sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film.
    Ludlow J; Mol A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jan; 91(1):109-19. PubMed ID: 11174581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Image quality assessment and radiation doses in intraoral radiography.
    Yakoumakis EN; Tierris CE; Stefanou EP; Phanourakis IG; Proukakis CC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):362-8. PubMed ID: 11250637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Technique charts for Kodak EC-L film screen system for portal localization in a 6MV X-ray beam.
    Sandilos P; Antypas C; Paraskevopoulou C; Kouvaris J; Vlachos L
    Technol Health Care; 2006; 14(6):467-72. PubMed ID: 17148858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Image information content and patient exposure.
    Motz JW; Danos M
    Med Phys; 1978; 5(1):8-22. PubMed ID: 634242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Photostimulation plates or conventional films for bedside chest x-ray in pediatric radiology? A comparative study of quality of image and the dose delivered to patients].
    Maccia C; Docou le Pointe H; Fery-Lemonnier E; Nadeau X; Montagne JP; Charpentier E; Ariche-Cohen M; Viens-Bitker C
    J Radiol; 1996 Nov; 77(11):1129-34. PubMed ID: 9033870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
    Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [High-contrast resolution of film-screen systems in oral and maxillofacial radiology].
    Kaeppler G; Reinert S
    Rofo; 2007 Nov; 179(11):1145-51. PubMed ID: 17805997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Multi-image camera for spot radiography at fluoroscopic examinations.
    Hynes DM; Edmonds EW; Krametz KR; Baranoski D; Hughes T
    Radiology; 1980 Jul; 136(1):213-8. PubMed ID: 7384502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose.
    Ramli K; Abdullah BJ; Ng KH; Mahmud R; Hussain AF
    Australas Radiol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):460-6. PubMed ID: 16351609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Direct comparison of conventional and computed radiography with a dual-image recording technique.
    MacMahon H; Sanada S; Doi K; Giger M; Xu XW; Yin FF; Montner SM; Carlin M
    Radiographics; 1991 Mar; 11(2):259-68. PubMed ID: 2028063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [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]  

  • 16. Comparison of the image quality of 105mm film with conventional film.
    Skucas J; Gorski JW
    Radiology; 1976 Feb; 118(2):433-7. PubMed ID: 1250980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Characteristics of Kodak Insight, an F-speed intraoral film.
    Ludlow JB; Platin E; Mol A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jan; 91(1):120-9. PubMed ID: 11174582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of a new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films.
    Farman TT; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 10654035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Extrafocal radiation of medical x-ray tubes with a rotating anode].
    Juran R; Hinz R
    Radiol Diagn (Berl); 1990; 31(1):91-8. PubMed ID: 2343094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimisation of patient radiation protection in conventional X-ray imaging procedures using film reject analysis: a demonstration of the importance of rare earth screen-film systems.
    Inkoom S; Schandorf C; Fletcher JJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2009 Sep; 136(3):196-202. PubMed ID: 19737839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.