116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7945109)
1. Phantom evaluation of the effect of film processing on mammographic screen-film combinations.
McLean D; Rickard MT
Australas Radiol; 1994 Aug; 38(3):179-82. PubMed ID: 7945109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Effects of delayed processing on mammographic phantom object detection.
Gerhardt DA; Pisano ED; Johnson C; Braeuning P; Dicke K; Washburn DB; Burns C; Huang KS
Invest Radiol; 1993 Dec; 28(12):1113-9. PubMed ID: 8307714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An evaluation of the effect of processing conditions on mammographic film contrast, fog levels and speed.
McLean D
Australas Radiol; 1992 Aug; 36(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 1445107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. New mammography screen/film combinations: imaging characteristics and radiation dose.
Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Zheutlin J; Gornbein JA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Apr; 154(4):713-9. PubMed ID: 2107663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mammographic dual-screen-dual-emulsion-film combination: visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast.
Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Roe D; Orr J
Radiology; 1987 Nov; 165(2):313-8. PubMed ID: 3310091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
Wiebringhaus R; John V; Müller RD; Hirche H; Voss M; Callies R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sensitometric evaluation of some mammographic film-screen combinations.
McLean D
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Sep; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 1953502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Quantitative evaluation of film-screen combinations for x-ray diagnosis].
Bronder T; Heinze-Assmann R
Phys Med Biol; 1988 May; 33(5):529-39. PubMed ID: 3399512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mammography screen-film selection: individual facility testing technique.
Kimme-Smith C; Bassett L; Gold RH; Parkinson B
Med Phys; 1992; 19(5):1195-9. PubMed ID: 1435598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Recent advances in screen-film mammography.
Haus AG
Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):913-28. PubMed ID: 3306773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Evaluation of radiographic image quality parameters obtained with the REX simulator.
Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; deAlmeida CE
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Nov; 147(4):614-8. PubMed ID: 21273198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography.
Barnes GT; Chakraborty DP
Radiology; 1982 Dec; 145(3):815-21. PubMed ID: 7146416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The use of a contrast-detail test object in the optimization of optical density in mammography.
Robson KJ; Kotre CJ; Faulkner K
Br J Radiol; 1995 Mar; 68(807):277-82. PubMed ID: 7735767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
