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 *

60 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9608380)

  • 1. Exposure margin in skeletal radiography and its effect on tube tilt compensation.
    Andersen KK; Carstensen HM
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 1998 May; 21(4):246-51. PubMed ID: 9608380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer.
    Gitlin JN; Scott WW; Bell K; Narayan A
    J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1(2):57-63. PubMed ID: 12105698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography of the hands and feet: a subjective comparison.
    Piraino DW; Davros WJ; Lieber M; Richmond BJ; Schils JP; Recht MP; Grooff PN; Belhobek GH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Jan; 172(1):177-84. PubMed ID: 9888764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contrast perception in digitized panoramic radiographs compared with their film-based origin.
    Schulze RK; Rosing ST; D'Hoedt B
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Sep; 94(3):388-94. PubMed ID: 12324798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of radiographic image quality from four digitization devices as viewed on computer monitors.
    Davidson HC; Johnston DJ; Christian ME; Harnsberger HR
    J Digit Imaging; 2001 Mar; 14(1):24-9. PubMed ID: 11310912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Skeletal surveys for child abuse: comparison of interpretation using digitized images and screen-film radiographs.
    Youmans DC; Don S; Hildebolt C; Shackelford GD; Luker GD; McAlister WH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Nov; 171(5):1415-9. PubMed ID: 9798889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Exposure variability and image quality in computed radiography.
    Fauber TL
    Radiol Technol; 2009; 80(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 19153197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Psychophysical properties of a new F-speed intraoral film.
    Mastoris M; Yoshiura K; Welander U; Tsiklakis K; Papadakis E; Li G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 May; 33(3):158-63. PubMed ID: 15371315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
    Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of cathode ray tube display format on observer performance in dental digitized radiography: comparison with plain films.
    Møystad A; Svanaes DB; Larheim TA; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1994 Nov; 23(4):206-10. PubMed ID: 7835525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Compatibility characteristics of five radiographic films utilised in Brazilian diagnostic radiology.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; de Almeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Sep; 156(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 23651656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of radiographic image quality parameters obtained with the REX simulator.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; deAlmeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Nov; 147(4):614-8. PubMed ID: 21273198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digitized hand-wrist radiographs: comparison of subjective and software-derived image quality at various compression ratios.
    McCord LK; Scarfe WC; Naylor RH; Scheetz JP; Silveira A; Gillespie KR
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 May; 131(5):679-88. PubMed ID: 17482091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The impact of technical conditions of X-ray imaging on reproducibility and precision of digital computer-assisted X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR).
    Malich A; Boettcher J; Pfeil A; Sauner D; Heyne JP; Petrovitch A; Hansch A; Linss W; Kaiser WA
    Skeletal Radiol; 2004 Dec; 33(12):698-703. PubMed ID: 15480639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends.
    Seibert JA; Shelton DK; Moore EH
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Apr; 3(4):313-8. PubMed ID: 8796680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with Film Digital Radiography System.
    Goodman LR; Foley WD; Wilson CR; Rimm AA; Lawson TL
    Radiology; 1986 Jan; 158(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 3940392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Some characteristics of solid-state and photo-stimulable phosphor detectors for intra-oral radiography.
    Borg E
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1999; 139():i-viii, 1-67. PubMed ID: 10635104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
    Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.