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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6701386)

  • 1. Enhanced-image mammography.
    McSweeney MB; Sprawls P; Egan RL
    Recent Results Cancer Res; 1984; 90():79-89. PubMed ID: 6701386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Enhanced image mammography.
    McSweeney MB; Sprawls P; Egan RL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1983 Jan; 140(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 6336871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study.
    Knogler T; Homolka P; Hörnig M; Leithner R; Langs G; Waitzbauer M; Pinker-Domenig K; Leitner S; Helbich TH
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Jun; 26(6):1575-81. PubMed ID: 26373754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Practical experiences with grid mammography in everyday practice].
    Lendvai-Virágh K; Lendvai T; Rückner R
    Rontgenblatter; 1983 Sep; 36(9):289-93. PubMed ID: 6635487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dual-energy subtraction mammography.
    Asaga T; Masuzawa C; Yoshida A; Matsuura H
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 Feb; 8(1 Suppl 1):70-3. PubMed ID: 7734544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Digital mammography: are there advantages in screening for breast cancer?
    Nees AV
    Acad Radiol; 2008 Apr; 15(4):401-7. PubMed ID: 18342763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with diffraction-enhanced imaging.
    Faulconer LS; Parham CA; Connor DM; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Lee Y; Cho KR; Rafoth J; Livasy CA; Kim E; Zeng D; Cole E; Zhong Z; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Apr; 17(4):433-40. PubMed ID: 20036586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Generalized subtraction methods in digital mammography.
    Taibi A
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Dec; 72(3):447-53. PubMed ID: 18799280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography.
    Alkhalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Asbeutah AM
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2016 Oct; 24(5):681-689. PubMed ID: 27341625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Advanced applications of digital mammography: tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
    Lewin JM; Niklason L
    Semin Roentgenol; 2007 Oct; 42(4):243-52. PubMed ID: 17919527
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A study on mastectomy samples to evaluate breast imaging quality and potential clinical relevance of differential phase contrast mammography.
    Hauser N; Wang Z; Kubik-Huch RA; Trippel M; Singer G; Hohl MK; Roessl E; Köhler T; van Stevendaal U; Wieberneit N; Stampanoni M
    Invest Radiol; 2014 Mar; 49(3):131-7. PubMed ID: 24141742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A breast phantom method for evaluating mammography technique.
    Stanton L; Villafana T; Day JL; Lightfoot DA
    Invest Radiol; 1978; 13(4):291-7. PubMed ID: 689822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.
    Spangler ML; Zuley ML; Sumkin JH; Abrams G; Ganott MA; Hakim C; Perrin R; Chough DM; Shah R; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):320-4. PubMed ID: 21257882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital mammography: novel applications.
    Rafferty EA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2007 Sep; 45(5):831-43, vii. PubMed ID: 17888772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) helpful in differentiating diabetic mastopathy from breast carcinoma?
    Travieso Aja MD; Santana López G; Rodríguez Rodríguez M; Luzardo OP
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2016 Oct; 60(5):639-641. PubMed ID: 27029715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
    Dromain C; Balleyguier C; Adler G; Garbay JR; Delaloge S
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 69(1):34-42. PubMed ID: 18790584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.
    Monreal S
    Radiol Technol; 2018 May; 89(5):518-520. PubMed ID: 29793915
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital mammography: clinical image evaluation.
    Bassett LW; Hoyt AC; Oshiro T
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2010 Sep; 48(5):903-15. PubMed ID: 20868893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.