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 *

52 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8130980)

  • 1. A comparison of mammographic phantoms.
    Faulkner K; Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Feb; 67(794):174-80. PubMed ID: 8130980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the Madrid area.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Vañó E
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jan; 69(817):42-8. PubMed ID: 8785620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A preliminary investigation of the imaging performance of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography using a new design of mammographic quality control test object.
    Cowen AR; Brettle DS; Coleman NJ; Parkin GJ
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Jun; 65(774):528-35. PubMed ID: 1628185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A new phantom for mammography.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1991 Feb; 64(758):116-20. PubMed ID: 2004202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reproducibility of Leeds TOR(MAM) mammographic test object plates.
    Underwood AC; Law J; Clayton C
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Feb; 70():186-91. PubMed ID: 9135446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The influence of focal spot size on image resolution and test phantom scores in mammography.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1993 May; 66(785):441-6. PubMed ID: 8319066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Image quality of mammographic systems.
    Karila KT
    Eur J Radiol; 1987 Aug; 7(3):194-8. PubMed ID: 3653110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.
    Yip WM; Pang SY; Yim WS; Kwok CS
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):621-8. PubMed ID: 11509398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control.
    Friedrich MA
    Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Short communication: A printed image quality test phantom for mammography.
    Kotre CJ; Porter DJ
    Br J Radiol; 2005 Aug; 78(932):746-8. PubMed ID: 16046428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. [Synchrotron radiation: a new source in x-ray mammography].
    Burattini E; Gambaccini M; Indovina PL; Pocek M; Simonetti G
    Radiol Med; 1992 Sep; 84(3):181-8. PubMed ID: 1410660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [Focal spot sizes and the geometric unsharpness of mammographic equipment].
    Küchler M; Friedrich M
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1992 Jul; 2(4):205-11. PubMed ID: 1504119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Image quality and optical density in mammography: study on phantoms].
    Stinés J; Noël A; Estivalet S; Troufléau P; Netter E; Quinquis J
    J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 79(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 9757259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.