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

185 related items for PubMed ID: 2105011

  • 1. Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination.
    Wojtasek DA, Teixidor HS, Govoni AF, Gareen IF.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Feb; 154(2):265-70. PubMed ID: 2105011
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparison of two screen-film combinations in contact and magnification mammography: detectability of microcalcifications.
    Oestmann JW, Kopans DB, Linetsky L, Hall DA, McCarthy KA, White G, Swann C, Kelley JE, Johnson LL.
    Radiology; 1988 Sep; 168(3):657-9. PubMed ID: 3406394
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Evaluation of a dual-screen, dual-emulsion mammography system.
    Jackson VP, Harrill CD, White SJ, Gillespie KR, Mail JT, Katz BP.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Mar; 152(3):483-6. PubMed ID: 2783800
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Mammographic dual-screen-dual-emulsion-film combination: visibility of simulated microcalcifications and effect on image contrast.
    Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Roe D, Orr J.
    Radiology; 1987 Nov; 165(2):313-8. PubMed ID: 3310091
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. [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]

  • 7. A comparison of an Agfa and Kodak film-screen combination for mammography.
    Dudson J.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1994 Dec; 17(4):211-6. PubMed ID: 7872903
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].
    Diekmann S, Bick U, von Heyden H, Diekmann F.
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography.
    Barnes GT, Chakraborty DP.
    Radiology; 1982 Dec; 145(3):815-21. PubMed ID: 7146416
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

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

  • 12. A comparison of mammography screen-film combinations.
    Schueler BA, Gray JE, Gisvold JJ.
    Radiology; 1992 Sep; 184(3):629-34. PubMed ID: 1509043
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Computed radiography-based mammography with 50-microm pixel size: intra-individual comparison with film-screen mammography for diagnosis of breast cancers.
    Onishi H, Masuda N, Takechi K, Nakayama T, Tatsuta M, Mihara N, Takamura M, Inoue Y, Kuriyama K, Kotsuma Y, Furukawa H, Murakami T, Nakamura H.
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Jul; 16(7):836-41. PubMed ID: 19345121
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. [ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].
    Wiebringhaus R, John V, Müller RD, Hirche H, Voss M, Callies R.
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1995 Jul; 5(4):263-7. PubMed ID: 7548257
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
    Kimme-Smith CM, Sayre JW, McCombs MM, DeBruhl ND, Bassett LW.
    Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Film-screen systems: sensitometric comparison of Kodak Ektavision system to Kodak T-Mat/RA system.
    Thunthy KH, Weinberg R.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Feb; 83(2):288-92. PubMed ID: 9117763
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Value of increasing film processing time to reduce radiation dose during mammography.
    Skubic SE, Yagan R, Oravec D, Shah Z.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Dec; 155(6):1189-93. PubMed ID: 2122664
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Mammographic microcalcifications: detection with xerography, screen-film, and digitized film display.
    Smathers RL, Bush E, Drace J, Stevens M, Sommer FG, Brown BW, Karras B.
    Radiology; 1986 Jun; 159(3):673-7. PubMed ID: 3704149
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A clinical comparison between conventional and digital mammography utilizing computed radiography.
    Brettle DS, Ward SC, Parkin GJ, Cowen AR, Sumsion HJ.
    Br J Radiol; 1994 May; 67(797):464-8. PubMed ID: 8193893
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.