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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7734548)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. [The value of digital imaging techniques in skeletal imaging].
    Lehmann KJ; Busch HP; Sommer A; Georgi M
    Rofo; 1991 Mar; 154(3):286-91. PubMed ID: 1849297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: general overview of fluoroscopic imaging.
    Schueler BA
    Radiographics; 2000; 20(4):1115-26. PubMed ID: 10903700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of two screen-film combinations in contact and magnification mammography: detectability of microcalcifications.
    Oestmann JW; Kopans DB; Linetsky L; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; White G; Swann C; Kelley JE; Johnson LL
    Radiology; 1988 Sep; 168(3):657-9. PubMed ID: 3406394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
    Boyce SJ; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with conventional screen film system (SFS), digital phosphor storage plate in/without magnification technique (CR) and digital CCD-technique (CCD).
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Säbel M; Böhner C; Dobritz M; Wenkel E; Bautz W
    Rontgenpraxis; 2001; 54(4):123-6. PubMed ID: 11883115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Hundertmark C; Sachs J; Gruhl T; Sperner W; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1997 Aug; 167(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 9333359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Clinical comparison of analog and digital 100 mm photofluorography.
    Hynes DM; Rowlands JA; Edmonds EW
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 1989 Oct; 40(5):262-5. PubMed ID: 2804717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Direct digital magnification mammography with a large-surface detector made of amorphous silicon].
    Hermann KP; Hundertmark C; Funke M; von Brenndorff A; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1999 May; 170(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 10370416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Plasma technology and its use in flat panel digital radiography.
    Zur A
    Radiol Manage; 2010; 32(2):10-3. PubMed ID: 22279712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Digital luminescence radiography and conventional radiography in abdominal contrast examinations.
    Krug B; Harnischmacher U; Krahe T; Fischbach R; Altenburg A; Krings F
    Acta Radiol; 1995 May; 36(3):284-9. PubMed ID: 7742124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Screen-film versus digital radiography of sacroiliac joints: evaluation of image quality and dose to patients.
    Jablanovic D; Ciraj-Bjelac O; Damjanov N; Seric S; Radak-Perovic M; Arandjic D; Maksimovic R
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jun; 155(1):88-95. PubMed ID: 23185070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Performance comparison of an active matrix flat panel imager, computed radiography system, and a screen-film system at four standard radiation qualities.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):343-50. PubMed ID: 15789578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. An analysis of dose efficiency in image intensified fluoroscopic examinations.
    Bernstein H; Muntz EP
    Med Phys; 1981; 8(2):167-73. PubMed ID: 7322044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Fluoroscopic dose reduction using a digital television noise-reduction device.
    Ablow RC; Jaffe CC; Orphanoudakis SC; Markowitz RI; Rosenfield NS
    Radiology; 1983 Jul; 148(1):313-5. PubMed ID: 6682983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: initial evaluation.
    Geijer H; Beckman K; Jonsson B; Andersson T; Persliden J
    Radiology; 2001 Feb; 218(2):402-10. PubMed ID: 11161153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Scanned-projection digital mammography.
    Nishikawa RM; Mawdsley GE; Fenster A; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 1987; 14(5):717-27. PubMed ID: 3683300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The design and imaging characteristics of dynamic, solid-state, flat-panel x-ray image detectors for digital fluoroscopy and fluorography.
    Cowen AR; Davies AG; Sivananthan MU
    Clin Radiol; 2008 Oct; 63(10):1073-85. PubMed ID: 18774353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography.
    Peer S; Peer R; Giacomuzzi SM; Jaschke W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):69-71. PubMed ID: 11487846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Digital thoracic radiography--a comparison of digital and analog imaging techniques].
    Busch HP
    Bildgebung; 1991; 58 Suppl 1():9-12. PubMed ID: 1799858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.