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 *

55 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8136385)

  • 1. [A daylight film development system for mammography. Report of clinical experience after 4000 examinations (corresponding to 14,000 mammographies].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Bauer M; Gueffroy A; Welscher M
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1994 Jan; 4(1):16-8. PubMed ID: 8136385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [The use of the Daylight System in mammography].
    Giuseppetti G; Maggi S; Ercolani P; Procaccini G; Amici F
    Radiol Med; 1989; 78(1-2):107-11. PubMed ID: 2781054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Lell M; Kuchar I; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Phantom study for the detection of simulated lesions in five different digital and one conventional mammography system].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Lell M; Böhner C; Wenkel E; Imhoff K; Schmid A; Krug B; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2004 Aug; 176(8):1127-32. PubMed ID: 15346289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations.
    McLean D; Eckert M; Heard R; Chan W
    Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [X-ray phase imaging using a X-ray tube with a small focal spot -improvement of image quality in mammography-].
    Honda C; Ohara H; Ishisaka A; Shimada F; Endo T
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 12766293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
    Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
    Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
    Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Development of antituberculous drugs: current status and future prospects].
    Tomioka H; Namba K
    Kekkaku; 2006 Dec; 81(12):753-74. PubMed ID: 17240921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [The procedures and results of a quality control program in mammography carried out on a regional basis].
    Milano F; Rosselli Del Turco M; Maggi E; Certo N; Morrone D; Lazzeri B
    Radiol Med; 1996 Mar; 91(3):187-93. PubMed ID: 8628928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Daylight development and mammography (author's transl)].
    Berry M
    J Radiol; 1982 Feb; 63(2):127-30. PubMed ID: 7086731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Confrontation of mammography systems in flanders with the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in mammography screening. Analysis of initial results.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Deprez T; Rogge F; Van Steen A; Van Limbergen E; Marchal G
    JBR-BTR; 1999 Dec; 82(6):288-93. PubMed ID: 10670170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A prototype of a quasi-monochromatic system for mammography applications.
    Baldelli P; Taibi A; Tuffanelli A; Gilardoni MC; Gambaccini M
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 May; 50(10):2225-40. PubMed ID: 15876663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Workflow improvement and efficiency gain with near total digitalization of a radiology department].
    Langen HL; Bielmeier J; Wittenberg G; Selbach R; Feustel H
    Rofo; 2003 Oct; 175(10):1309-16. PubMed ID: 14556098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
    Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Digital mammography.
    Lewin JM; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2004 Sep; 42(5):871-84, vi. PubMed ID: 15337422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit.
    Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Contributions of the epidemiological cancer registries to the evaluation of mammography screening in Germany].
    Urbschat I; Kieschke J; Schlanstedt-Jahn U; von Gehlen S; Thiel A; Jensch P
    Gesundheitswesen; 2005 Jul; 67(7):448-54. PubMed ID: 16103967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prophylactic Oophorectomy: Reducing the U.S. Death Rate from Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. A Continuing Debate.
    Piver MS
    Oncologist; 1996; 1(5):326-330. PubMed ID: 10388011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.