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 *

51 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 877263)

  • 1. [Proposals for standardizing the image quality of mammography (author's transl)].
    Frischbier HJ; Gregl A; Hoeffken W; Hüppe JR
    Radiologe; 1977 May; 17(5):193-4. PubMed ID: 877263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
    Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Film-screen combinations for mammography].
    Säbel M; Aichinger H
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1991 May; 1(3):105-12. PubMed ID: 1878377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [X-ray examination of the breast (author's transl)].
    Friedrich M
    Rontgenblatter; 1981 Apr; 34(4):151-60. PubMed ID: 7015468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [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]  

  • 7. Quality assurance in screening mammography.
    Health Devices; 1990; 19(5-6):152-98. PubMed ID: 2372321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Quality assurance breast phantoms for screen-film mammography: design and use.
    Stanton L; Villafana T
    Appl Radiol; 1989 Nov; 18(11):41-8. PubMed ID: 10304413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Anthropomorphic radiological phantoms for mammography.
    Yaffe MJ; Byng JW; Caldwell CB; Bennett NR
    Med Prog Technol; 1993; 19(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 8302211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [ROC-analysis in testing and training the interpretation of radiographs with mammography serving as an example (author's transl)].
    John V; Hirche H; Callies R; Lenz W
    Radiologe; 1981 May; 21(5):255-9. PubMed ID: 7232718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [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]  

  • 12. [Problems of image quality in mammography. Avoidable technical errors in performance and evaluation of mammograms (author's transl)].
    Hüppe JR; Schneider HJ
    Radiologe; 1977 May; 17(5):197-202. PubMed ID: 877265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical image evaluation.
    Bassett LW
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1027-39. PubMed ID: 7480653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [The value of physical methods (mammography and thermography) in examining breasts (author's transl)].
    Castaño-Almendral A
    Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax; 1976 Feb; 65(6):161-3. PubMed ID: 1250828
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Quality control in mammography.
    Hendrick RE; Botsco M; Plott CM
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1041-57. PubMed ID: 7480654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Proficiency test in clinical mammography. Results of a consecutive series of 130 volunteer Italian radiologists].
    Ciatto S; Andreoli C; Di Maggio C
    Radiol Med; 1999 Oct; 98(4):255-8. PubMed ID: 10615363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
    Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
    Zdesar U
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Rogge F; Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Nijs K; Van Steen A; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):120-30. PubMed ID: 16461531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Artifacts in digital mammography.
    Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.