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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

148 related items for PubMed ID: 10962993

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. [Full-field digital mammography: dose-dependent detectability of breast lesions and microcalcinosis].
    Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Schorn C, Fischer U, Grabbe E.
    Rofo; 2000 Dec; 172(12):1052-6. PubMed ID: 11199434
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography.
    Lai YC, Ray KM, Lee AY, Hayward JH, Freimanis RI, Lobach IV, Joe BN.
    Radiology; 2018 Dec; 289(3):630-638. PubMed ID: 30277445
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
    Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E.
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.
    Kim HS, Han BK, Choo KS, Jeon YH, Kim JH, Choe YH.
    Korean J Radiol; 2005 Jul; 6(4):214-20. PubMed ID: 16374078
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Performance of 2D Synthetic Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in the Detection of Microcalcifications at Screening.
    Dodelzon K, Simon K, Dou E, Levy AD, Michaels AY, Askin G, Katzen JT.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jun; 214(6):1436-1444. PubMed ID: 32255687
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. [Value and significance of digital full-field mammography within the scope of mammography screening].
    Grabbe E, Fischer U, Funke M, Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Baum F.
    Radiologe; 2001 Apr; 41(4):359-65. PubMed ID: 11388057
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. [ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].
    Gaspard-Bakhach S, Dilhuydy MH, Bonichon F, Barreau B, Henriques C, Maugey-Laulom B.
    J Radiol; 2000 Feb; 81(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 10705143
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.