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 *

81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8334259)

  • 21. ROC and contrast detail image evaluation tests compared.
    Kelsey CA; Moseley RD; Garcia JF; Mettler FA; Parker TW; Juhl JH
    Radiology; 1985 Mar; 154(3):629-31. PubMed ID: 3969463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [The experimental and clinical evaluation of digital chest radiography using FCR (Fuji Computed Radiography)].
    Oda J
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1990 Dec; 50(12):1485-98. PubMed ID: 2089362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. High-speed, single-screen/single-emulsion film systems: basic imaging properties and preliminary clinical applications.
    Higashida Y; Frank PH; Doi K
    Radiology; 1983 Nov; 149(2):571-7. PubMed ID: 6622705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [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]  

  • 25. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
    Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
    Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [The effect of technical parameters on diagnostic quality].
    Brandt GA
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1991 Jan; 1(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 2018801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Exposure factors and screen-film combinations in temporomandibular joint radiography.
    Thorburn DN; Stockdill DA; Kenyon RP; Cowan I; Ferguson MM
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 May; 20(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 1936423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
    Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Comparison of film-screen combinations with contrast detail diagram and interactive image analysis. 2: Linear assessment of grey scale ranges with interactive image analysis].
    Stamm G; Eichbaum G; Hagemann G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Sep; 7(5):284-7. PubMed ID: 9410005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of a new type of high sharpness film for skull radiography.
    Honda E; Yoshino N; Chiba R; Sasaki T
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 May; 20(2):59-64. PubMed ID: 1936417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Chest radiography: ROC phantom study of four different digital systems and one conventional radiographic system].
    Redlich U; Reissberg S; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Scherlach C; Döhring W
    Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 12525979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Scoliosis examinations: organ dose and image quality with rare-earth screen-film systems.
    Fearon T; Vucich J; Butler P; McSweeney WJ; Taylor GA; Markle BM; Hoe J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 Feb; 150(2):359-62. PubMed ID: 3257326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [The value of digital imaging techniques in skeletal imaging].
    Lehmann KJ; Busch HP; Sommer A; Georgi M
    Rofo; 1991 Mar; 154(3):286-91. PubMed ID: 1849297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Evaluation of resolution and sensitometric characteristics of an asymmetric screen-film imaging system.
    Gray JE; Stears JG; Swensen SJ; Bunch PC
    Radiology; 1993 Aug; 188(2):537-9. PubMed ID: 8327711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparative evaluation of several rare-earth film-screen systems.
    Braun M; Wilson BC
    Radiology; 1982 Sep; 144(4):915-9. PubMed ID: 7111746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. [Comparison of film-screen combinations in contrast-detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 3: Trimodal histograms of gray scale distribution in bar groups of lead pattern images].
    Hagemann G; Eichbaum G; Stamm G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1998 May; 8(3):151-6. PubMed ID: 9645256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography.
    Dobbins JT; Rice JJ; Beam CA; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 1992 Apr; 183(1):179-87. PubMed ID: 1549669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Comparison of film-screen combination in a contrast detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 1: Contrast detail diagram].
    Hagemann G; Eichbaum G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Jul; 7(4):212-5. PubMed ID: 9340021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Portable chest imaging: comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film, and conventional screen-film systems.
    Niklason LT; Chan HP; Cascade PN; Chang CL; Chee PW; Mathews JF
    Radiology; 1993 Feb; 186(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 8421740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.