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 *

65 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7784570)

  • 1. MR imaging: quality assessment method and ratings at 33 centers.
    Friedman DP; Rosetti GF; Flanders AE; Piccoli CW; Rao VM; Mitchell DG; Tartaglino LM; Gonzalez CF; Schweitzer ME; Mishkin MM
    Radiology; 1995 Jul; 196(1):219-26. PubMed ID: 7784570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Variation in the quality of lumbar spine MR images in Washington State.
    Jarvik JG; Robertson WD; Wessbecher F; Reger K; Solomon C; Whitten R; Lumley T; Deyo RA
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):483-90. PubMed ID: 10796929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality assurance for abdominal CT: a rapid, computer-assisted technique.
    Pomerantz SM; Daly B; Krebs TL; NessAiver M; Kepes SY; Wong JJ; Severson M; Siegler C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Nov; 167(5):1141-5. PubMed ID: 8911167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Definition criteria for a magnetic resonance quality assurance program: multicenter study].
    Mascaro L; Strocchi S; Colombo P; Del Corona M; Baldassarri AM
    Radiol Med; 1999 May; 97(5):389-97. PubMed ID: 10432972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Discrepancy rates of radiology resident interpretations of on-call neuroradiology MR imaging studies.
    Filippi CG; Schneider B; Burbank HN; Alsofrom GF; Linnell G; Ratkovits B
    Radiology; 2008 Dec; 249(3):972-9. PubMed ID: 19011191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. MR imaging field strength: prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at 0.5 and 1.5 T.
    Lee DH; Vellet AD; Eliasziw M; Vidito L; Ebers GC; Rice GP; Hewett L; Dunlavy S
    Radiology; 1995 Jan; 194(1):257-62. PubMed ID: 7997564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Detection of simulated multiple sclerosis lesions on T2-weighted and FLAIR images of the brain: observer performance.
    Woo JH; Henry LP; Krejza J; Melhem ER
    Radiology; 2006 Oct; 241(1):206-12. PubMed ID: 16990678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Quality control of outpatient imaging examinations in North Rhine-Westphalia, Part II].
    Krug B; Boettge M; Reineke T; Coburger S; Zähringer M; Harnischmacher U; Lüngen M; Lauterbach KW; Lehmacher W; Lackner K
    Rofo; 2003 Mar; 175(3):346-60. PubMed ID: 12635011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging of healthy volunteers: pilot study results from the population-based SHIP study.
    Hegenscheid K; Kühn JP; Völzke H; Biffar R; Hosten N; Puls R
    Rofo; 2009 Aug; 181(8):748-59. PubMed ID: 19598074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Neuropsychologic correlates of brain white matter lesions depicted on MR images: 1921 Aberdeen Birth Cohort.
    Leaper SA; Murray AD; Lemmon HA; Staff RT; Deary IJ; Crawford JR; Whalley LJ
    Radiology; 2001 Oct; 221(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 11568320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group.
    ; ; ; ; ; ;
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Oct; 3(10):751-71. PubMed ID: 17412166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T.
    Maubon AJ; Ferru JM; Berger V; Soulage MC; DeGraef M; Aubas P; Coupeau P; Dumont E; Rouanet JP
    Radiographics; 1999; 19(4):1057-67. PubMed ID: 10464808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Are there cervical spine findings at MR imaging that are specific to acute symptomatic whiplash injury? A prospective controlled study with four experienced blinded readers.
    Anderson SE; Boesch C; Zimmermann H; Busato A; Hodler J; Bingisser R; Ulbrich EJ; Nidecker A; Buitrago-Téllez CH; Bonel HM; Heini P; Schaeren S; Sturzenegger M
    Radiology; 2012 Feb; 262(2):567-75. PubMed ID: 22187629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation body MR imaging compared with standard MR imaging at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience.
    Willinek WA; Gieseke J; Kukuk GM; Nelles M; König R; Morakkabati-Spitz N; Träber F; Thomas D; Kuhl CK; Schild HH
    Radiology; 2010 Sep; 256(3):966-75. PubMed ID: 20720078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance.
    Heijmink SW; Fütterer JJ; Hambrock T; Takahashi S; Scheenen TW; Huisman HJ; Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa CA; Knipscheer BC; Kiemeney LA; Witjes JA; Barentsz JO
    Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):184-95. PubMed ID: 17495178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of 1.0-T extremity MR and 1.5-T conventional high-field-Strength MR in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
    Naraghi AM; White LM; Patel C; Tomlinson G; Keystone EC
    Radiology; 2009 Jun; 251(3):829-37. PubMed ID: 19380693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Interobserver reliability in the interpretation of diagnostic lumbar MRI and nuclear imaging.
    Mulconrey DS; Knight RQ; Bramble JD; Paknikar S; Harty PA
    Spine J; 2006; 6(2):177-84. PubMed ID: 16517390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. MR colonoscopy at 3.0 T: comparison with 1.5 T in vivo and a colon model.
    Röttgen R; Herzog H; Bogen P; Freund T; Felix R; Bruhn H
    Clin Imaging; 2006; 30(4):248-53. PubMed ID: 16814140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Early invasive cervical cancer: CT and MR imaging in preoperative evaluation - ACRIN/GOG comparative study of diagnostic performance and interobserver variability.
    Hricak H; Gatsonis C; Coakley FV; Snyder B; Reinhold C; Schwartz LH; Woodward PJ; Pannu HK; Amendola M; Mitchell DG
    Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 17940305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Preauthorization of CT and MRI examinations: assessment of a managed care preauthorization program based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria and the Royal College of Radiology guidelines.
    Blachar A; Tal S; Mandel A; Novikov I; Polliack G; Sosna J; Freedman Y; Copel L; Shemer J
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Nov; 3(11):851-9. PubMed ID: 17412184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.