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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8923905)

  • 1. Clinical assessment of dry laser-processed film versus traditional wet-processed film with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound.
    Krupinski EA
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Oct; 3(10):855-8. PubMed ID: 8923905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Image quality of dry-processed film.
    Okabe T; Nakamura K; Asano T
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2001 Jul; 66(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 11378226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Digital film processing: a comparison of wet and dry processing methods.
    Health Devices; 1998 Aug; 27(8):293-8. PubMed ID: 9743901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dry versus conventional laser imagers: film properties and image quality.
    Gahleitner A; Kreuzer S; Schick S; Nowotny R; Breitenseher M; Solar P; Czerny C; Lang T; Imhof H
    Radiology; 1999 Mar; 210(3):871-5. PubMed ID: 10207495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Fundamental study on stability of dry-processing imager system DRYPRO 722/SD-P].
    Sonobe F; Toyooka K; Abe S; Tanaka T; Naka E; Fujisaki T; Nishimura K; Saitoh H; Mochizuki Y
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(3):173-82. PubMed ID: 12766281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Optical density changes in dry-processed films.
    Al Khalifah K; Brindhaban A; Al Baloul G; Al Bather F; Abdulgafoor M
    Radiol Technol; 2007; 79(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 17848529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Dry view laser imager--a new economical photothermal imaging method].
    Weberling R
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1996 Nov; 6(6):355-60. PubMed ID: 9081413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Basic three-dimensional rendering techniques used in diagnostic imaging].
    Szopiński K; Rakoczy A; Słapa RZ
    Pol Merkur Lekarski; 2002 Jan; 12(67):5-10. PubMed ID: 11957804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Optical density variations in CT films and their effect on image quality.
    Tsalafoutas IA; Papoutsis GV; Maniatis PN; Gogos KA
    Br J Radiol; 2006 May; 79(941):425-31. PubMed ID: 16632624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of dry laser printer versus paper printer in full-field digital mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Guo X; Rong D; Kang R; Mao G; Liu J; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2010 Apr; 51(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 20092369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Image acquisition: ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging.
    Langer SG; Carter SJ; Haynor DR; Maravella KR; Mattes D; Strandness ED; Stewart BK
    World J Surg; 2001 Nov; 25(11):1428-37. PubMed ID: 11760747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The stability of dry and wet laser imaging systems.
    AlKhalifah K; Brindhaban A; Al-Ali H; Alhuraibi A
    Radiol Technol; 2005; 76(3):192-6. PubMed ID: 15732890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Computed radiography versus screen-film mammography in detection of simulated microcalcifications: a receiver operating characteristic study based on phantom images.
    Shaw CC; Wang T; King JL; Breitenstein DS; Chang TS; Harris KM; Baratz AB; Ganott MA; Reginella R; Sumkin JH; Gur D
    Acad Radiol; 1998 Mar; 5(3):173-80. PubMed ID: 9522883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation with conventional, laser-printed, and high-resolution workstation images.
    Slasky BS; Gur D; Good WF; Costa-Greco MA; Harris KM; Cooperstein LA; Rockette HE
    Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):775-80. PubMed ID: 2305061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Imaging characteristics of intraocular foreign bodies: a comparative study of plain film X-ray, computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging.
    Modjtahedi BS; Rong A; Bobinski M; McGahan J; Morse LS
    Retina; 2015 Jan; 35(1):95-104. PubMed ID: 25090044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?
    Schueller G; Kaindl E; Langenberger H; Stadler A; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Semturs F; Helbich TH
    Eur J Radiol; 2007 May; 62(2):267-72. PubMed ID: 17188829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Urinary calculi on computed radiography: comparison of observer performance with hard-copy versus soft-copy images on different viewer systems.
    Kim AY; Cho KS; Song KS; Kim JH; Kim JG; Ha HK
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Aug; 177(2):331-5. PubMed ID: 11461856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.
    Cole EB; Pisano ED; Zeng D; Muller K; Aylward SR; Park S; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Pavic D; Walsh R; Baker J; Gimenez EI; Freimanis R
    Acad Radiol; 2005 May; 12(5):585-95. PubMed ID: 15866131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Stability of a dry laser imaging system.
    Chu RY; Christian EN; Eaton BG
    Radiol Technol; 1999; 71(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 10546285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Digital X-ray mammography: comparison of the image quality achievable with a wet laser imager, a dry infrared laser imager and a dry laser imager using direct thermography].
    Krug B; Stützer H; Zähringer M; Morgenroth C; Winnekendonk G; Gossmann A; Warm M; Lackner K
    Rofo; 2005 Jul; 177(7):955-61. PubMed ID: 15973597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.