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 *

80 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11387152)

  • 1. A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer.
    Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Apr; 74(880):335-40. PubMed ID: 11387152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Uncertainties of exposure-related quantities in mammographic x-ray unit quality control.
    Gregory KJ; Pattison JE; Bibbo G
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):687-98. PubMed ID: 16878572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998.
    Young KC; Burch A
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Mar; 73(867):278-87. PubMed ID: 10817044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quality control programme in mammography: second level quality controls.
    Nassivera E; Nardin L
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Jun; 70(834):612-8. PubMed ID: 9227255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography.
    Wu X; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
    Radiology; 1991 Apr; 179(1):143-8. PubMed ID: 2006265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of mammography radiation dose values obtained from direct incident air kerma measurements with values from measured X-ray spectral data.
    Assiamah M; Nam TL; Keddy RJ
    Appl Radiat Isot; 2005 Apr; 62(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 15701409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screening.
    Stanton L; Day JL; Villafana T; Miller CH; Lightfoot DA
    Radiology; 1987 May; 163(2):471-9. PubMed ID: 3562829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002.
    Young KC; Burch A; Oduko JM
    Br J Radiol; 2005 Mar; 78(927):207-18. PubMed ID: 15730985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessment of mean glandular dose in mammography.
    Faulkner K; Law J; Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Aug; 68(812):877-81. PubMed ID: 7551786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Monte Carlo generated conversion factors for the estimation of average glandular dose in contact and magnification mammography.
    Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5539-48. PubMed ID: 17047268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Automatic patient dose registry and clinical audit on line for mammography.
    Ten JI; Vano E; Sánchez R; Fernandez-Soto JM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):346-9. PubMed ID: 25809108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment.
    Boone JM
    Radiology; 1999 Oct; 213(1):23-37. PubMed ID: 10540637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography.
    Young KC; Oduko JM; Bosmans H; Nijs K; Martinez L
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79(948):981-90. PubMed ID: 17213303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit.
    Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Testing mammography equipment: evolution over a 4-year period.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Fox SA; Solberg T
    Med Phys; 1992; 19(6):1491-5. PubMed ID: 1461214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Light output and x-ray attenuation measurements at mammographic beam qualities for nine commercial intensifying screens.
    Parker-Hodds S; Moores BM
    Radiology; 1979 Jun; 131(3):737-42. PubMed ID: 441381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum.
    Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dose and image quality in mammography with an automatic beam quality system.
    Young KC; Ramsdale ML; Rust A
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jun; 69(822):555-62. PubMed ID: 8757659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Experimental spectral measurements of heavy K-edge filtered beams for x-ray computed mammotomography.
    Crotty DJ; McKinley RL; Tornai MP
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Feb; 52(3):603-16. PubMed ID: 17228108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography.
    Wu X; Gingold EL; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
    Radiology; 1994 Oct; 193(1):83-9. PubMed ID: 8090926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.