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 *

73 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12187840)

  • 1. Investigation of radiation quality and doses in Japanese routine mammography.
    Fujisaki T; Igarashi A; Takahashi S; Watanabe K; Nishimura K; Abe S; Saitoh H; Fukuda K; Matsumoto M
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 2002 Jul; 62(8):436-41. PubMed ID: 12187840
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
    Zdesar U
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quality assurance in screening mammography.
    Health Devices; 1990; 19(5-6):152-98. PubMed ID: 2372321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose.
    Ng KH; Jamal N; DeWerd L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006; 121(4):445-51. PubMed ID: 16709704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
    Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quality assurance breast phantoms for screen-film mammography: design and use.
    Stanton L; Villafana T
    Appl Radiol; 1989 Nov; 18(11):41-8. PubMed ID: 10304413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
    Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Performance measurements of mammographic systems.
    Bor D; Akyol O; Olgar T
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):165-9. PubMed ID: 18448439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Confrontation of mammography systems in flanders with the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in mammography screening. Analysis of initial results.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Deprez T; Rogge F; Van Steen A; Van Limbergen E; Marchal G
    JBR-BTR; 1999 Dec; 82(6):288-93. PubMed ID: 10670170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Breast exposure: nationwide trends; a mammographic quality assurance program--results to date.
    Jensen JE; Butler PF
    Radiol Technol; 1978; 50(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 264140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Rogge F; Zanca F; Jacobs J; Van Ongeval C; Nijs K; Van Steen A; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):120-30. PubMed ID: 16461531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Dosage loads and quality of the image in mammography].
    Kozlov AP; Shishov VA; Telesh LV; Fedorov IuA
    Vestn Rentgenol Radiol; 1986; (3):74-9. PubMed ID: 3750831
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Use of the ROC method in problems of image quality and quality control in mammography].
    Wurm J; Säbel M; Weishaar J
    Rofo; 1982 Aug; 137(2):201-11. PubMed ID: 6215307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Obstacles remain on road to digital mammography.
    Johnson M
    Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1999 Nov; Suppl Digital():D19-21. PubMed ID: 10724731
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control.
    Friedrich MA
    Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Artifacts in digital mammography.
    Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [The procedures and results of a quality control program in mammography carried out on a regional basis].
    Milano F; Rosselli Del Turco M; Maggi E; Certo N; Morrone D; Lazzeri B
    Radiol Med; 1996 Mar; 91(3):187-93. PubMed ID: 8628928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Mammography -a guidance level and the present situation of mammographic dose-].
    Terada H
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(2):65-73. PubMed ID: 12766282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.