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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7734543)

  • 41. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
    Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Digital mammography, sestamibi breast scintigraphy, and positron emission tomography breast imaging.
    Pisano ED; Parham CA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 38(4):861-9, x. PubMed ID: 10943283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an analog screen-film technique using a low-contrast phantom.
    Krug KB; Stützer H; Schröder R; Boecker J; Poggenborg J; Lackner K
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Sep; 191(3):W80-8. PubMed ID: 18716083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
    Karssemeijer N; Bluekens AM; Beijerinck D; Deurenberg JJ; Beekman M; Visser R; van Engen R; Bartels-Kortland A; Broeders MJ
    Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 19703851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
    Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
    Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis on assessment of the lesions in dense breast: a preliminary study].
    Li Y; Ye ZX; Wu T; An YH; Liu PF; Bao RX
    Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2013 Jan; 35(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 23648297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
    Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Evaluation of new image processing conditions for digital mammograms from Fuji computed radiography.
    Kano H; Endo T; Ikeda M; Oiwa M; Ishigaki T
    Nagoya J Med Sci; 2006 Jun; 68(3-4):131-8. PubMed ID: 16967779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer: an overview.
    Van Ongeval Ch
    JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):163-6. PubMed ID: 17696081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Is the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy of calcifications different for digital and film-screen mammography?
    McLaughlin CT; Neal CH; Helvie MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Oct; 203(4):917-22. PubMed ID: 25247961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
    Burton A; Byrnes G; Stone J; Tamimi RM; Heine J; Vachon C; Ozmen V; Pereira A; Garmendia ML; Scott C; Hipwell JH; Dickens C; Schüz J; Aribal ME; Bertrand K; Kwong A; Giles GG; Hopper J; Pérez Gómez B; Pollán M; Teo SH; Mariapun S; Taib NA; Lajous M; Lopez-Riduara R; Rice M; Romieu I; Flugelman AA; Ursin G; Qureshi S; Ma H; Lee E; Sirous R; Sirous M; Lee JW; Kim J; Salem D; Kamal R; Hartman M; Miao H; Chia KS; Nagata C; Vinayak S; Ndumia R; van Gils CH; Wanders JO; Peplonska B; Bukowska A; Allen S; Vinnicombe S; Moss S; Chiarelli AM; Linton L; Maskarinec G; Yaffe MJ; Boyd NF; Dos-Santos-Silva I; McCormack VA
    Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Dec; 18(1):130. PubMed ID: 27993168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Objective assessment of image quality in conventional and digital mammography taking into account dynamic range.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):380-2. PubMed ID: 15933141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. [Film-screen mammography versus digital storage plate mammography: hard copy and monitor display of microcalcifications and focal findings--a retrospective clinical and histologic analysis].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Aichinger U; Tartsch M; Kuchar I; Bödicker A; Evertsz C; Peitgen HO; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2003 Sep; 175(9):1220-4. PubMed ID: 12964077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen-film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial.
    Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A; Joossens K; Celis V; Van Goethem M; Verslegers I; Nijs K; Rogge F; Marchal G
    Eur Radiol; 2006 Jun; 16(6):1360-6. PubMed ID: 16518656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [Improvement of detectability of microcalcifications by magnification digital mammography].
    Higashida Y; Hatemura M; Yoshida A; Takada T; Takahashi M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1998 Aug; 58(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 9778932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection.
    Fischmann A; Siegmann KC; Wersebe A; Claussen CD; Müller-Schimpfle M
    Br J Radiol; 2005 Apr; 78(928):312-5. PubMed ID: 15774591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. [Clinical results of digital mammography].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Bautz W
    Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):255-63. PubMed ID: 15744483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.
    Chan HP; Vyborny CJ; MacMahon H; Metz CE; Doi K; Sickles EA
    Invest Radiol; 1987 Jul; 22(7):581-9. PubMed ID: 3623862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.