BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

92 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9340021)

  • 1. [Comparison of film-screen combination in a contrast detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 1: Contrast detail diagram].
    Hagemann G; Eichbaum G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Jul; 7(4):212-5. PubMed ID: 9340021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Comparison of film-screen combinations in contrast-detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 3: Trimodal histograms of gray scale distribution in bar groups of lead pattern images].
    Hagemann G; Eichbaum G; Stamm G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1998 May; 8(3):151-6. PubMed ID: 9645256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Comparison of film-screen combinations with contrast detail diagram and interactive image analysis. 2: Linear assessment of grey scale ranges with interactive image analysis].
    Stamm G; Eichbaum G; Hagemann G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Sep; 7(5):284-7. PubMed ID: 9410005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging.
    De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Smeets P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):174-7. PubMed ID: 16461499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Recent advances in screen-film mammography.
    Haus AG
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):913-28. PubMed ID: 3306773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose.
    Ramli K; Abdullah BJ; Ng KH; Mahmud R; Hussain AF
    Australas Radiol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):460-6. PubMed ID: 16351609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Complex evaluation of film mammographic imaging systems. 2. Comparison of 18 systems using a signal-noise matrix].
    Friedrich M; Weskamp P
    Rofo; 1984 Jun; 140(6):707-16. PubMed ID: 6429790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Technique charts for Kodak EC-L film screen system for portal localization in a 6MV X-ray beam.
    Sandilos P; Antypas C; Paraskevopoulou C; Kouvaris J; Vlachos L
    Technol Health Care; 2006; 14(6):467-72. PubMed ID: 17148858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage.
    Tingberg A; Sjöström D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):286-93. PubMed ID: 15933123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessment of the problem: pediatric doses in screen-film and digital radiography.
    Huda W
    Pediatr Radiol; 2004 Oct; 34 Suppl 3():S173-82; discussion S234-41. PubMed ID: 15558259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of the imaging characteristics of the new Kodak Hyper Speed G film with the current T-MAT G/RA film and the CR 9000 system.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Oct; 50(19):4541-52. PubMed ID: 16177488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of the detectability of high- and low-contrast details on a TFT screen and a CRT screen designed for radiologic diagnosis.
    Kotter E; Bley TA; Saueressig U; Fisch D; Springer O; Winterer JT; Schaefer O; Langer M
    Invest Radiol; 2003 Nov; 38(11):719-24. PubMed ID: 14566182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparative evaluation of rare-earth screen-film systems. System speed, contrast, sensitometry, RMS noise, square-wave response function, and contrast-dose-detail analysis.
    Fearon T; Vucich J; Hoe J; McSweeney WJ; Potter BM
    Invest Radiol; 1986 Aug; 21(8):654-62. PubMed ID: 3744739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
    Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [The reduction of radiation burden in mammography using film-screen combination systems].
    Waegner U; Geissler S; Rosenkranz G
    Radiol Diagn (Berl); 1990; 31(5):465-70. PubMed ID: 2277840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. New mammography screen/film combinations: imaging characteristics and radiation dose.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Zheutlin J; Gornbein JA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Apr; 154(4):713-9. PubMed ID: 2107663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
    Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.