108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8307714)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. [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]
6. 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]
7. A comparison of digital and screen-film mammography using quality control phantoms.
Undrill PE; O'Kane AD; Gilbert FJ
Clin Radiol; 2000 Oct; 55(10):782-90. PubMed ID: 11052880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
Gaspard-Bakhach S; Dilhuydy MH; Bonichon F; Barreau B; Henriques C; Maugey-Laulom B
J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screening.
Stanton L; Day JL; Villafana T; Miller CH; Lightfoot DA
Radiology; 1987 May; 163(2):471-9. PubMed ID: 3562829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mammographic scanning equalization radiography.
Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB
Med Phys; 1993; 20(5):1505-15. PubMed ID: 8289735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Optimizing optical density of a Kodak mammography film-screen combination with standard-cycle processing.
McParland BJ; Boyd MM; al Yousef K
Br J Radiol; 1998 Sep; 71(849):950-3. PubMed ID: 10195010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.
Yamada T; Saito M; Ishibashi T; Tsuboi M; Matsuhashi T; Sato A; Saito H; Takahashi S; Onuki K; Ouchi N
Radiat Med; 2004; 22(6):408-12. PubMed ID: 15648457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
