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: 9089119)

  • 21. Assessing medical residents' usage and perceived needs for personal digital assistants.
    Barrett JR; Strayer SM; Schubart JR
    Int J Med Inform; 2004 Feb; 73(1):25-34. PubMed ID: 15036076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
    Chotas HG; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The digital imaging workstation.
    Arenson RL; Chakraborty DP; Seshadri SB; Kundel HL
    Radiology; 1990 Aug; 176(2):303-15. PubMed ID: 2367643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
    Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Intraoral radiology in general dental practices - a comparison of digital and film-based X-ray systems with regard to radiation protection and dose reduction.
    Anissi HD; Geibel MA
    Rofo; 2014 Aug; 186(8):762-7. PubMed ID: 24648236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography.
    Peer S; Peer R; Walcher M; Pohl M; Jaschke W
    Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(8):1693-6. PubMed ID: 10525892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Objective assessment of image quality in conventional and digital mammography taking into account dynamic range.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):380-2. PubMed ID: 15933141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients.
    Steckel RJ; Batra P; Johnson S; Sayre J; Brown K; Haker K; Young D; Zucker M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Apr; 164(4):837-41. PubMed ID: 7726034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Electronic system for digital acquisition of rotational panoramic radiographs.
    McDavid WD; Dove SB; Welander U; Tronje G
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Apr; 71(4):499-502. PubMed ID: 2052338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Computer-assisted radiology--requirements and solutions for digital diagnostic imaging.
    Greinacher CF; Bach EF; Herforth M; Luetke B; Seufert G
    Med Inform (Lond); 1990; 15(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 2197517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Quantification of axial alignment of the lower extremity on conventional and digital total leg radiographs.
    Sailer J; Scharitzer M; Peloschek P; Giurea A; Imhof H; Grampp S
    Eur Radiol; 2005 Jan; 15(1):170-3. PubMed ID: 15300399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Computed radiography in neonatal intensive care.
    Merlo L; Bighi S; Cervi PM; Lupi L
    Pediatr Radiol; 1991; 21(2):94-6. PubMed ID: 2027732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of observer variation in conventional and three digital radiographic methods used in the evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
    Mok JM; Berven SH; Diab M; Hackbarth M; Hu SS; Deviren V
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Mar; 33(6):681-6. PubMed ID: 18344863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Marten K; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Skaane P; Grabbe E
    J Digit Imaging; 2003 Dec; 16(4):341-4. PubMed ID: 14749966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Detection of CT-proved pulmonary nodules: comparison of selenium-based digital and conventional screen-film chest radiographs.
    Woodard PK; Slone RM; Sagel SS; Fleishman MJ; Gutierrez FR; Reiker GG; Pilgram TK; Jost RG
    Radiology; 1998 Dec; 209(3):705-9. PubMed ID: 9844662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Comparative contrast media studies using conventional film-screen systems and digital luminescence radiography].
    Christiansen GR; Marks W; Münster F; Prüss H; Quirin A
    Rontgenblatter; 1990 Apr; 43(4):157-62. PubMed ID: 2339258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Digital chest radiography.
    MacMahon H; Doi K
    Clin Chest Med; 1991 Mar; 12(1):19-32. PubMed ID: 2009743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [PACS: from project to reality. Report of experiences on full digitalisation of the radiology department of a major hospital].
    Gross-Fengels W; Miedeck C; Siemens P; Appel R; Mückner K; Finsterbusch J; Bonas H
    Radiologe; 2002 Feb; 42(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 11963246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Digital imaging of the chest.
    Merritt CR; Matthews CC; Scheinhorn D; Balter S
    J Thorac Imaging; 1985 Dec; 1(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 3916446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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