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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9084774)

  • 1. Differences in time to interpretation for evaluation of bone radiographs with monitor and film viewing.
    Krupinski EA; Lund PJ
    Acad Radiol; 1997 Mar; 4(3):177-82. PubMed ID: 9084774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of conventional and computed radiography: assessment of image quality and reader performance in skeletal extremity trauma.
    Lund PJ; Krupinski EA; Pereles S; Mockbee B
    Acad Radiol; 1997 Aug; 4(8):570-6. PubMed ID: 9261456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search.
    Krupinski E; Roehrig H; Furukawa T
    Acad Radiol; 1999 Jul; 6(7):411-8. PubMed ID: 10410166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Receiver-operating-characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hard-copy film vs 2K x 2K soft-copy images.
    Razavi M; Sayre JW; Taira RK; Simons M; Huang HK; Chuang KS; Rahbar G; Kangarloo H
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Feb; 158(2):443-8. PubMed ID: 1729805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Reliability of soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a prototype study.
    Kundel HL; Polansky M; Dalinka MK; Choplin RH; Gefter WB; Kneelend JB; Miller WT; Miller WT
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):525-8. PubMed ID: 11517041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film.
    Reiner BI; Siegel EL; Hooper FJ; Pomerantz S; Dahlke A; Rallis D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Apr; 176(4):861-4. PubMed ID: 11264065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of newly developed CRT viewing station: CT reading and observer's performance.
    Hirota H; Shimamoto K; Yamakawa K; Ishigaki T; Takahashi Y; Sugiyama N; Nishihara E; Tani Y
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 1995; 19(3):281-5. PubMed ID: 7641172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hard-copy versus soft-copy image reading for detection of ureteral stones on abdominal radiography.
    Ueda K; Iwasaki S; Nagasawa M; Sueyoshi S; Takahama J; Ide K; Kichikawa K
    Radiat Med; 2003; 21(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 14632296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images.
    Reiner BI; Siegel EL; Hooper FJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1407-10. PubMed ID: 12438025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Display considerations for hospital-wide viewing of soft copy images.
    Brettle DS
    Br J Radiol; 2007 Jul; 80(955):503-7. PubMed ID: 17704314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. PACS monitors: an evolution of radiologist's viewing techniques.
    Bennett WF; Vaswani KK; Mendiola JA; Spigos DG
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1():171-4. PubMed ID: 12105721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Enhanced visualization processing: effect on workflow.
    Krupinski EA; Radvany M; Levy A; Ballenger D; Tucker J; Chacko A; VanMetter R
    Acad Radiol; 2001 Nov; 8(11):1127-33. PubMed ID: 11721812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interpretation time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator.
    Beard DV; Molina PL; Muller KE; Denelsbeck KM; Hemminger BM; Perry JR; Braeuning MP; Glueck DH; Bidgood WD; Mauro M
    Radiology; 1995 Dec; 197(3):753-8. PubMed ID: 7480751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Detection of interstitial lung abnormalities on picture archive and communication system video monitors.
    Washowich TL; Williams SC; Richardson LA; Simmons GE; Dao NV; Allen TW; Hammet GC; Morris MJ
    J Digit Imaging; 1997 Feb; 10(1):34-9. PubMed ID: 9147526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Computed radiography in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a comparison of 2.5 K x 2 K soft-copy images vs digital hard-copy film.
    Brill PW; Winchester P; Cahill P; Lesser M; Durfee SM; Giess CS; Auld PA; Greenwald B
    Pediatr Radiol; 1996; 26(5):333-6. PubMed ID: 8657462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of 2048-line digital display formats and conventional radiographs: an ROC study.
    Hayrapetian A; Aberle DR; Huang HK; Fiske R; Morioka C; Valentino D; Boechat MI
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 May; 152(5):1113-8. PubMed ID: 2705346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Interpretation of CT studies: single-screen workstation versus film alternator.
    Beard DV; Hemminger BM; Perry JR; Mauro MA; Muller KE; Warshauer DM; Smith MA; Zito AJ
    Radiology; 1993 May; 187(2):565-9. PubMed ID: 8475309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.