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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6729501)

  • 1. Digital film processing: applications to the musculoskeletal system.
    Sartoris DJ; Sommer FG
    Skeletal Radiol; 1984; 11(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 6729501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography: an observer performance study.
    Wegryn SA; Piraino DW; Richmond BJ; Schluchter MD; Uetani M; Freed HA; Meziane MA; Belhobek GA
    Radiology; 1990 Apr; 175(1):225-8. PubMed ID: 2315485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of flat-panel digital to conventional film-screen radiography in detection of experimentally created lesions of the equine third metacarpal bone.
    Moorman VJ; Marshall JF; Devine DV; Payton M; Jann HW; Bahr R
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2009; 50(6):577-83. PubMed ID: 19999339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital image processing of cephalometric radiographs: a preliminary report.
    Jackson PH; Dickson GC; Birnie DJ
    Br J Orthod; 1985 Jul; 12(3):122-32. PubMed ID: 3860252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography: observer performance study.
    Bramble JM; Murphey MD
    Radiology; 1990 Nov; 177(2):587-9. PubMed ID: 2278585
    [No 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 processing of film radiographs.
    Sommer FG; Smathers RL; Wheat RL; Alvarez RE; Brody WR; Cassel DM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1985 Jan; 144(1):191-6. PubMed ID: 3880625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical application of a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction in skeletal radiography.
    Strotzer M; Gmeinwieser J; Völk M; Fründ R; Seitz J; Manke C; Albrich H; Feuerbach S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jul; 171(1):23-7. PubMed ID: 9648757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Computed radiography in musculoskeletal imaging: state of the art.
    Murphey MD; Quale JL; Martin NL; Bramble JM; Cook LT; Dwyer SJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Jan; 158(1):19-27. PubMed ID: 1727344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Flat panel detector systems in skeletal radiology].
    Grampp S
    Wien Med Wochenschr Suppl; 2002; (113):12-4. PubMed ID: 12621829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of contrast detail curves of full field digital with screen film breast phantom images.
    Visweswaran A; Liu H; Fajardo LL; DeAngelis GA
    Front Biosci; 1996 Aug; 1():b5-7. PubMed ID: 9159197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Ultrasound in evaluation of soft tissue lesions of the musculoskeletal system].
    Blankstein A; Heyman Z; Salai M; Yitzchak Y; Chechick A
    Harefuah; 1997 Sep; 133(5-6):212-5. PubMed ID: 9461694
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Musculoskeletal radiology: then and now.
    Feldman F
    Radiology; 2000 Aug; 216(2):309-16. PubMed ID: 10924543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Digital method of assessing bone radiographs].
    Słomczykowski M; Kmieciak M; Wolf L; Kołodziejczyk K
    Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol; 1995; 60(3):211-5. PubMed ID: 7671748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Digital skeletal radiography.
    Buckwalter KA; Braunstein EM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 May; 158(5):1071-80. PubMed ID: 1566670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns.
    Ishida M; Doi K; Loo LN; Metz CE; Lehr JL
    Radiology; 1984 Feb; 150(2):569-75. PubMed ID: 6691118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. CT and MRI evaluation of musculoskeletal infection.
    Ma LD; Frassica FJ; Bluemke DA; Fishman EK
    Crit Rev Diagn Imaging; 1997 Dec; 38(6):535-68. PubMed ID: 9442978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Detection of small bone lesions with digital radiography using storage phosphors].
    Salvini E; Zincone G; Fossati N; Crivellaro M; Crespi A; Loda A; Paruccini N; Pastori R
    Radiol Med; 1991 May; 81(5):705-8. PubMed ID: 2057602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Musculoskeletal sonography: a dynamic tool for usual and unusual disorders.
    Khoury V; Cardinal E; Bureau NJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):W63-73. PubMed ID: 17179329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Pediatric musculoskeletal computed radiography.
    Kottamasu SR; Kuhns LR; Stringer DA
    Pediatr Radiol; 1997 Jul; 27(7):563-75. PubMed ID: 9211947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.