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 *

51 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6849047)

  • 1. Anticrossover emulsions evaluated by observer performance tests.
    Kelsey CA; Moseley RD; Mettler FA; Garcia JF; Parker TW; Juhl JH; Briscoe DE
    Radiology; 1983 Jan; 146(1):209-11. PubMed ID: 6849047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Chest radiographs obtained with shaped filters: evaluation by observer performance tests.
    Kelsey CA; Lane RG; Moseley RD; Mettler FA; Rosenberg RD; Williams AG; Garcia JF; Feldman BS; Boardman RE
    Radiology; 1986 Jun; 159(3):653-5. PubMed ID: 3704147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules.
    Chakraborty DP; Breatnach ES; Yester MV; Soto B; Barnes GT; Fraser RG
    Radiology; 1986 Jan; 158(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 3940394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Detection of simulated lung nodules evaluated with various film/screen systems].
    Li-Feng
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1997 Feb; 57(3):104-9. PubMed ID: 9077091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [The use of an asymmetric film-screen combination for the imaging of round pulmonary foci].
    Müller RD; Wähling S; Hirche H; Voss M; Gocke P; Gocke C; Blendl C; Turowski B; Buddenbrock B; John V
    Rofo; 1995 Oct; 163(4):290-6. PubMed ID: 7579214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of crossover exposure on radiographic image quality of screen-film systems.
    Doi K; Loo LN; Anderson TM; Frank PH
    Radiology; 1981 Jun; 139(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 7232738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
    Grassl U; Schulze RK
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2007 May; 103(5):694-701. PubMed ID: 17466887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of a PC-based teleconferencing system for reading chest radiographs.
    Xu Z; Yamauchi K; Ikeda M; Yang S; Hasegawa Y
    J Telemed Telecare; 1999; 5(2):122-5. PubMed ID: 10628023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Observer performance studies: detection of single versus multiple abnormalities of the chest.
    Fuhrman CR; Britton CA; Bender T; Sumkin JH; Brown ML; Holbert JM; Chang TS; Rockette HE; Gur D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1551-3. PubMed ID: 12438053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Advanced multiple beam equalization radiography (AMBER) in the detection of diffuse lung disease.
    Hansell DM; Coleman R; du Bois RM; Carr DH; Goodman LR; Kerr IH; Pearson MC; Rubens MB
    Clin Radiol; 1991 Oct; 44(4):227-31. PubMed ID: 1959297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using receiver operating characteristic methodology to evaluate the diagnostic quality of radiography on paper prints versus film.
    Bley TA; Kotter E; Saueressig U; Springer OS; Fisch D; Ghanem NA; Langer M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Dec; 181(6):1487-90. PubMed ID: 14627560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Factors affecting perception of pulmonary lesions.
    Brogdon BG; Kelsey CA; Moseley RD
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1983 Dec; 21(4):633-54. PubMed ID: 6657962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
    Chotas HG; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
    [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. Relation between radiographic mottle for double and single emulsions.
    Arimura H; Okawa T; Okamoto M; Ikari T; Nakamori N; Kubota H; Matsumoto M; Takigawa A; Kanamori H
    Med Phys; 1998 Sep; 25(9):1625-35. PubMed ID: 9775367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography.
    Molander B; Gröndahl HG; Ekestubbe A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 15140820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quantitative assessment of radiation-induced lung changes by computerized optical densitometry of routine chest x-rays.
    Bentzen SM; Skoczylas JZ; Overgaard M; Overgaard J; Nielsen OG; Madsen EH
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1996 Jan; 34(2):421-7. PubMed ID: 8567344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.