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
166 related items for PubMed ID: 17848529
1. Optical density changes in dry-processed films. Al Khalifah K, Brindhaban A, Al Baloul G, Al Bather F, Abdulgafoor M. Radiol Technol; 2007; 79(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 17848529 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Optical density variations in CT films and their effect on image quality. Tsalafoutas IA, Papoutsis GV, Maniatis PN, Gogos KA. Br J Radiol; 2006 May; 79(941):425-31. PubMed ID: 16632624 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [Digital X-ray mammography: comparison of the image quality achievable with a wet laser imager, a dry infrared laser imager and a dry laser imager using direct thermography]. Krug B, Stützer H, Zähringer M, Morgenroth C, Winnekendonk G, Gossmann A, Warm M, Lackner K. Rofo; 2005 Jul; 177(7):955-61. PubMed ID: 15973597 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The stability of dry and wet laser imaging systems. AlKhalifah K, Brindhaban A, Al-Ali H, Alhuraibi A. Radiol Technol; 2005 Jul; 76(3):192-6. PubMed ID: 15732890 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. [Sensitometric characteristics of medical roentgenographic and fluorographic films. Sensitivity of the amplifying screens combined with a film]. Gurvich AM, Erofeeva ND, Katomina RV, Maslov LA. Med Tekh; 1976 Jul; (2):17-22. PubMed ID: 1030760 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammographic film-processor temperature, development time, and chemistry: effect on dose, contrast, and noise. Kimme-Smith C, Rothschild PA, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Moler C. AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Jan; 152(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 2783288 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of varying processing solution temperature on radiographic contrast and relative film speed of dental film. Matthee MJ, Becker PJ, Seeliger JE. J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1990 Dec; 45(12):525-8. PubMed ID: 2098942 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparative physical evaluation of four X-ray films. Egyed M, Shearer DR. Radiol Manage; 1981 Sep; 3(4):11-20. PubMed ID: 10253292 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Quality assurance through constancy control for x-ray film processors (author's transl)]. Weberling R. Rontgenblatter; 1982 Jun; 35(6):248-54. PubMed ID: 7089438 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. [Fundamental study on stability of dry-processing imager system DRYPRO 722/SD-P]. Sonobe F, Toyooka K, Abe S, Tanaka T, Naka E, Fujisaki T, Nishimura K, Saitoh H, Mochizuki Y. Igaku Butsuri; 2002 Jun; 22(3):173-82. PubMed ID: 12766281 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [The use of a test phantom in step-shaped forms (test steps) for the clarification of different problem situations in x-ray diagnosis. 1. The use of test steps for the estimation of image quality after modified darkroom technics]. Parisot M. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 1990 Mar 01; 103(3):92-4. PubMed ID: 2317188 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of radiographs developed by a new ultrarapid film processing system. Schmidt RA, Doi K, Sekiya M, Xu XW, Giger ML, Lu CT, Mojtahedi S, MacMahon H. AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 May 01; 154(5):1107-10. PubMed ID: 2108553 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Safety assessment of near infrared light emitting diodes for diffuse optical measurements. Bozkurt A, Onaral B. Biomed Eng Online; 2004 Mar 22; 3(1):9. PubMed ID: 15035670 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The dynamic interaction of water with four dental impression materials during cure. Hosseinpour D, Berg JC. J Prosthodont; 2009 Jun 22; 18(4):292-300. PubMed ID: 19210607 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]