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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14596300)

  • 41. Glandular radiation dose in tomosynthesis of the breast using tungsten targets.
    Sechopoulosa I; D'Orsi CJ
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2008 Oct; 9(4):161-171. PubMed ID: 19020492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Characterization of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters for application in clinical mammography.
    Benevides LA; Hintenlang DE
    Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):514-20. PubMed ID: 16532959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
    Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
    Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Dance DR; Thilander AK; Sandborg M; Skinner CL; Castellano IA; Carlsson GA
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography.
    Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Yaffe M; Alm Carlsson G
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jul; 50(13):3143-52. PubMed ID: 15972986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Optimization of radiation dose and image quality in mammography: a clinical evaluation of rhodium versus molybdenum.
    Monticciolo DL; Sprawls P; Kruse BD; Peterson JE
    South Med J; 1996 Apr; 89(4):391-4. PubMed ID: 8614878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Direct measurement of mammographic x-ray spectra using a CdZnTe detector.
    Matsumoto M; Yamamoto A; Honda I; Taniguchi A; Kanamori H
    Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1490-502. PubMed ID: 10947252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. [Setting of the soft X-ray field for the calibration of the dosimeters used in mammographic field].
    Sekimoto M; Katoh T; Satoh M; Yano K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2012; 68(6):680-5. PubMed ID: 22805444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. An accurate method for computer-generating tungsten anode x-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV.
    Boone JM; Seibert JA
    Med Phys; 1997 Nov; 24(11):1661-70. PubMed ID: 9394272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. Dosimetric and image quality comparison of two digital mammography units with different target/filter combinations: Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh, W/Rh, W/Ag.
    Emanuelli S; Rizzi E; Amerio S; Fasano C; Cesarani F
    Radiol Med; 2011 Mar; 116(2):310-8. PubMed ID: 21225367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Optimization of x-ray spectra in digital mammography through Monte Carlo simulations.
    Cunha DM; Tomal A; Poletti ME
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1919-35. PubMed ID: 22421418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Mammograms obtained with rhodium vs molybdenum anodes: contrast and dose differences.
    Kimme-Smith C; Wang J; DeBruhl N; Basic M; Bassett LW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jun; 162(6):1313-7. PubMed ID: 8191989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Simulations of X-ray spectra, half value layer, and mean energy from mammography using EGSnrc Monte Carlo and SpekPy.
    Ngoc Huy B; Van Dung P
    Radiography (Lond); 2023 Jan; 29(1):28-37. PubMed ID: 36215915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
    Alkhalifah K; Brindabhan A; Alsaeed R
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Real-time estimation system for mean glandular dose in mammography.
    Matsumoto M; Inoue S; Honda I; Yamamoto S; Ueguchi T; Ogata Y; Johkoh T
    Radiat Med; 2003; 21(6):280-4. PubMed ID: 14743903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Guntern D; Verdun FR
    Med Phys; 2007 Mar; 34(3):906-14. PubMed ID: 17441236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Image simulation and a model of noise power spectra across a range of mammographic beam qualities.
    Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Diaz O; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121901. PubMed ID: 25471961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Patient dose in digital mammography.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.