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 *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7735746)

  • 1. Subjective evaluation of image quality based on images obtained with a breast tissue phantom: comparison with a conventional image quality phantom.
    Olsen JB; Sager EM
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Feb; 68(806):160-4. PubMed ID: 7735746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Observer performance and dose efficiency of mammographic scanning equalization radiography.
    Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB
    Med Phys; 1993; 20(5):1517-25. PubMed ID: 8289736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of mammographic image quality: pilot study comparing five methods.
    Caldwell CB; Fishell EK; Jong RA; Weiser WJ; Yaffe MJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Aug; 159(2):295-301. PubMed ID: 1632343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effects of ambient light and view box luminance on the detection of calcifications in mammography.
    Kimme-Smith C; Haus AG; DeBruhl N; Bassett LW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Mar; 168(3):775-8. PubMed ID: 9057533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A phantom for the measurement of contrast detail performance in film-screen mammography.
    Thompson SR; Faulkner K
    Br J Radiol; 1991 Nov; 64(767):1049-55. PubMed ID: 1742587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
    Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display.
    Smathers RL; Bush E; Drace J; Stevens M; Sommer FG; Brown BW; Karras B
    Radiology; 1986 Jun; 159(3):673-7. PubMed ID: 3704149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Color mammography. Image generation and receiver operating characteristic evaluation.
    Boone JM
    Invest Radiol; 1991 Jun; 26(6):521-7. PubMed ID: 1860758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination.
    Wojtasek DA; Teixidor HS; Govoni AF; Gareen IF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Feb; 154(2):265-70. PubMed ID: 2105011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Algorithmic 3D simulation of breast calcifications for digital mammography.
    Näppi J; Dean PB; Nevalainen O; Toikkanen S
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2001 Jul; 66(1):115-24. PubMed ID: 11378233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [The film-mammographic demonstration of micro-calcification (author's transl)].
    Klein J
    Rofo; 1979 Aug; 131(2):205-10. PubMed ID: 157957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Vanó E
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Jun; 67(798):556-63. PubMed ID: 8032809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Subjective evaluations of mammographic accreditation phantom images by three observer groups.
    Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ
    Invest Radiol; 1994 Jan; 29(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 8144336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms.
    De Maeseneer M; Beeckman P; Osteaux M; Mattheus R; Hoste M; Bastaerts Y; Jong B
    J Belge Radiol; 1992 Jun; 75(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 1400145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Controlled single-blind clinical evaluation of low-dose mammographic screen--film systems.
    Sickles EA; Genant HK
    Radiology; 1979 Feb; 130(2):347-51. PubMed ID: 760148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality.
    Braeuning MP; Cooper HW; O'Brien S; Burns CB; Washburn DB; Schell MJ; Pisano ED
    Acad Radiol; 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70. PubMed ID: 10480042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improved image quality for dense breasts in mammography.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Jan; 65(769):50-5. PubMed ID: 1486368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Detectability of simulated masses and calcifications in mammography. Development of a phantom and a new method for determination of receiver operating characteristics.
    Olsen JB; Skretting A
    Acta Radiol; 1998 Sep; 39(5):501-6. PubMed ID: 9755698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A phantom-based evaluation of an exposure equalization technique in mammography.
    Skiadopoulos S; Pierrakeas C; Costaridou L; Kalogeropoulou CP; Panayiotakis G
    Br J Radiol; 1999 Oct; 72(862):977-85. PubMed ID: 10673949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.