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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8796650)

  • 1. Computed radiography and film digitizer inputs to an intensive care unit teleradiology system: an image quality comparison.
    Huda W; Honeyman JC; Palmer CK; Frost MM; Staab EV
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Feb; 3(2):110-4. PubMed ID: 8796650
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. Productivity and cost assessment of computed radiography, digital radiography, and screen-film for outpatient chest examinations.
    Andriole KP
    J Digit Imaging; 2002 Sep; 15(3):161-9. PubMed ID: 12532253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Development of a high quality film duplication system using a laser digitizer: comparison with computed radiography.
    Yoshimura H; Xu XW; Doi K; MacMahon H; Hoffmann KR; Giger ML; Montner SM
    Med Phys; 1993; 20(1):51-8. PubMed ID: 8455513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison between different cost devices for digital capture of X-ray films: an image characteristics detection approach.
    Salazar AJ; Camacho JC; Aguirre DA
    J Digit Imaging; 2012 Feb; 25(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 21614654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of a photostimulable phosphor system with film for dental radiology.
    Huda W; Rill LN; Benn DK; Pettigrew JC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Jun; 83(6):725-31. PubMed ID: 9195631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Method of duplicating film using the CR system: evaluation of detectability in a simulated nodule.
    Fukuyama A; Ando S; Maeda K; Ida K; Suzuki T; Fukuyama K; Hasegawa T
    Radiat Med; 2005 Aug; 23(5):336-40. PubMed ID: 16342906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Computed radiography versus mobile direct radiography for bedside chest radiographs: impact of dose on image quality and reader agreement.
    De Boo DW; Weber M; Deurloo EE; Streekstra GJ; Freling NJ; Dongelmans DA; Schaefer-Prokop CM
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Sep; 66(9):826-32. PubMed ID: 21570679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. ROC-study of a teleradiology workstation versus film readings.
    Størmer J; Bolle SR; Sund T; Weller GE; Gitlin JN
    Acta Radiol; 1997 Jan; 38(1):176-80. PubMed ID: 9059424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Specification and initial evaluation of a multiple application teleradiology system.
    O'Hare NJ; Wallis F; Kennedy JM; Hickey E; McDermott GJ; Dowling A; Murphy J; Malone JF
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Aug; 69(824):735-42. PubMed ID: 8949676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An evaluation of the signal and noise characteristics of four CCD-based film digitizers.
    Hangiandreou NJ; O'Connor TJ; Felmlee JP
    Med Phys; 1998 Oct; 25(10):2020-6. PubMed ID: 9800711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Design of a high-speed, high-resolution teleradiology network.
    Stewart BK; Dwyer SJ; Kangarloo H
    J Digit Imaging; 1992 Aug; 5(3):144-55. PubMed ID: 1520740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Single-exposure conventional and computed radiography image acquisition.
    Chotas HG; Dobbins JT; Floyd CE; Ravin CE
    Invest Radiol; 1991 May; 26(5):438-45. PubMed ID: 2055742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optimisation strategies introduced for CR at health care centres in Estonia.
    Kepler K; Vladimirov A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):127-31. PubMed ID: 18252852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optimal steel thickness combined with computed radiography for portal imaging of nasopharyngeal cancer patients.
    Wu S; Jin X; Xie C; Cao G
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3112-6. PubMed ID: 16279063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretation.
    Scott WW; Rosenbaum JE; Ackerman SJ; Reichle RL; Magid D; Weller JC; Gitlin JN
    Radiology; 1993 Jun; 187(3):811-5. PubMed ID: 8497636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Personal computer teleradiology interhospital image transmission of neonatal radiographs to facilitate tertiary neonatology telephone consultation and patient transfer.
    Yamamoto LG; Ash KM; Boychuk RB; Balaraman V; Iwaishi LK; Sommer-Candelario SA; Amell CM; Bennett MI
    J Perinatol; 1996; 16(4):292-8. PubMed ID: 8866301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Pediatric high KV/filtered airway radiographs: comparison of CR and film-screen systems.
    Nickoloff EL; Berdon WE; Lu ZF; Ruzal-Shapiro CB; So JC; Dutta AK
    Pediatr Radiol; 2002 Jul; 32(7):476-84. PubMed ID: 12107580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.