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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8428416)

  • 21. Evaluation of a flat panel digital radiographic system for low-dose portable imaging of neonates.
    Samei E; Hill JG; Frey GD; Southgate WM; Mah E; Delong D
    Med Phys; 2003 Apr; 30(4):601-7. PubMed ID: 12722812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Pediatric musculoskeletal computed radiography.
    Kottamasu SR; Kuhns LR; Stringer DA
    Pediatr Radiol; 1997 Jul; 27(7):563-75. PubMed ID: 9211947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [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]  

  • 24. [Reduction of patient exposure by the use of digital luminescence radiography].
    Seifert H; Chapot C
    J Radiol; 1999 Nov; 80(11):1555-60. PubMed ID: 10592912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Ultra-high pitch chest computed tomography at 70 kVp tube voltage in an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom and non-sedated pediatric patients: Initial experience with 3
    Hagelstein C; Henzler T; Haubenreisser H; Meyer M; Sudarski S; Schoenberg SO; Neff KW; Weis M
    Z Med Phys; 2016 Dec; 26(4):349-361. PubMed ID: 26702762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program.
    Heddson B; Rönnow K; Olsson M; Miller D
    Eur J Radiol; 2007 Dec; 64(3):419-25. PubMed ID: 17383841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Clinical experience with an advanced laser digitizer for cost-effective digital radiography.
    MacMahon H; Xu XW; Hoffmann KR; Giger ML; Yoshimura H; Doi K; Carlin M; Kano A; Yao L; Abe K
    Radiographics; 1993 May; 13(3):635-45; discussion 645-6. PubMed ID: 8316670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Detection of subtle undisplaced rib fractures in a porcine model: radiation dose requirement--digital flat-panel versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems.
    Ludwig K; Schülke C; Diederich S; Wormanns D; Lenzen H; Bernhardt TM; Brinckmann P; Heindel W
    Radiology; 2003 Apr; 227(1):163-8. PubMed ID: 12615999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Development of Quality-Controlled Low-Dose Protocols for Radiography in the Neonatal ICU Using a New Mobile Digital Radiography System.
    Choi G; Cheon JE; Lee S; Choi YH; Shin SH; Cho YJ; Park SW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Aug; 215(2):488-493. PubMed ID: 32406770
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Digital thoracic radiography--a comparison of digital and analog imaging techniques].
    Busch HP
    Bildgebung; 1991; 58 Suppl 1():9-12. PubMed ID: 1799858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends.
    Seibert JA; Shelton DK; Moore EH
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Apr; 3(4):313-8. PubMed ID: 8796680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].
    Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W
    Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [Experiences with digital luminescence radiography (DLR) in pediatric radiology].
    Vosshenrich R; Weigel W; Fischer U; Funke M; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1992 Feb; 156(2):107-11. PubMed ID: 1739766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
    Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [An economic comparison between digital luminescence radiography and conventional film processing in intensive care medicine].
    Peters PE; Dykstra DE; Wiesmann W; Schlüchtermann J; Adam D
    Radiologe; 1992 Nov; 32(11):536-40. PubMed ID: 1461981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Screen-film versus digital radiography of sacroiliac joints: evaluation of image quality and dose to patients.
    Jablanovic D; Ciraj-Bjelac O; Damjanov N; Seric S; Radak-Perovic M; Arandjic D; Maksimovic R
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jun; 155(1):88-95. PubMed ID: 23185070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics.
    Cowen AR; Davies AG; Kengyelics SM
    Clin Radiol; 2007 Dec; 62(12):1132-41. PubMed ID: 17981160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography.
    Peer S; Peer R; Giacomuzzi SM; Jaschke W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2001; 94(1-2):69-71. PubMed ID: 11487846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Digital image intensifier radiography--what dose for what clinical problem?].
    Lehmann KJ; Busch HP; Georgi M
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1992 Jan; 2(1):11-5. PubMed ID: 1547288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Problems associated with digital luminescence radiography in the neonate and young infant. Problems with digital radiography.
    Arthur RJ; Pease JN
    Pediatr Radiol; 1992; 22(1):5-7. PubMed ID: 1594310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.