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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12474409)

  • 1. [Mammography in Lodz--doses and conditions of diagnostic devices].
    Staniszewska MA; Papierz S
    Med Pr; 2002; 53(4):307-10. PubMed ID: 12474409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of results from quality control of physical parameters and results from clinical evaluation of mammographic images for the mammography screening facilities in Poland.
    Fabiszewska E; Grabska I; Jankowska K; Wesolowska E; Bulski W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):206-9. PubMed ID: 21824870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography.
    McParland BJ; Boyd MM
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Jun; 73(870):613-26. PubMed ID: 10911785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Evaluation of equipment performance, patient dose, imaging quality, and diagnostic coincidence in five Mexico City mammography services.
    Brandan ME; Ruiz-Trejo C; Verdejo-Silva M; Guevara M; Lozano-Zalce H; Madero-Preciado L; Martín J; Noel-Etienne LM; Ramírez-Arias JL; Soto J; Villaseñor Y
    Arch Med Res; 2004; 35(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 15036796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Relationship between phantom failure rates and radiation dose in mammography accreditation.
    Haus AG; Yaffe MJ; Feig SA; Hendrick RE; Butler PA; Wilcox PA; Bansal S
    Med Phys; 2001 Nov; 28(11):2297-301. PubMed ID: 11764036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [A program devoted to dose and quality in mammography (DQM)].
    Rimondi O; Gambaccini M; Indovina P; Candini G
    Radiol Med; 1986 Mar; 72(3):116-20. PubMed ID: 3704212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
    Weigel S; Girnus R; Czwoydzinski J; Decker T; Spital S; Heindel W
    Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Vanó E
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Jun; 67(798):556-63. PubMed ID: 8032809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Assessment of mammographic units in Poland in the view of current requirements of radiation protection regulations].
    Bekas M; Pachocki KA; Rózycki Z; Wieprzowski K; Fabiszewska E
    Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig; 2006; 57(1):81-90. PubMed ID: 16900867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom Breast Screening Programme.
    Burch A; Goodman DA
    Br J Radiol; 1998 May; 71(845):517-27. PubMed ID: 9691897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium.
    Smans K; Bosmans H; Xiao M; Carton AK; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):321-6. PubMed ID: 16464839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mammography dosimetry using an in-house developed polymethyl methacrylate phantom.
    Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS; Chourasiya G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(2):379-85. PubMed ID: 22232773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Performance of mammography equipment in the Macedonian breast screening campaign 2008/2009.
    Gershan V; Antevska-Grujoska S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):187-91. PubMed ID: 21733866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic X-ray system.
    Young KC; Ramsdale ML; Rust A; Cooke J
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Oct; 70(838):1036-42. PubMed ID: 9404208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality control in mammography: an initiative in France.
    Maccia C; Renaud R; Castellano S; Schaffer P; Wahl R; Haehnel P; Dale G; Gairard B
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Apr; 67(796):371-83. PubMed ID: 8173879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria.
    Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.