177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14743903)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Ambient dose equivalent and effective dose from scattered x-ray spectra in mammography for Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh and W/Rh anode/filter combinations.
Künzel R; Herdade SB; Costa PR; Terini RA; Levenhagen RS
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(8):2077-91. PubMed ID: 16585846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Investigation of mean glandular dose versus compressed breast thickness relationship for mammography.
Bor D; Tukel S; Olgar T; Toklu T; Aydin E; Akyol O
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):160-4. PubMed ID: 18420560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [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]
8. 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]
9. Evaluation of mean glandular dose in a full-field digital mammography unit in Tabriz, Iran.
Alizadeh Riabi H; Mehnati P; Mesbahi A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Dec; 142(2-4):222-7. PubMed ID: 20823039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Investigation of breast dose in five screening mammography centres in Greece.
Tsapaki V; Tsalafoutas IA; Poga V; Louizi A; Kottou S; Koulentianos E
J Radiol Prot; 2008 Sep; 28(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 18714130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of double layer filter on mean glandular dose (MGD) and image quality in low energy image of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (LE-CESM).
Niroshani HS; Nakamura T; Michiru N; Negishi T
Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):340-347. PubMed ID: 34838440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Glandularity and mean glandular dose determined for individual women at four regional breast cancer screening units in the Netherlands.
Zoetelief J; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Jansen JT
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(7):1807-17. PubMed ID: 16552106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dosimetry in a mammography phantom using TLD-300 dosimeters.
Muñoz ID; Gamboa-deBuen I; Avila O; Brandan ME
Med Phys; 2018 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 29989176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients.
Ciraj-Bjelac O; Beciric S; Arandjic D; Kosutic D; Kovacevic M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 20159918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Monte Carlo calculation of monoenergetic and polyenergetic DgN coefficients for mean glandular dose estimates in mammography using a homogeneous breast model.
Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; di Franco F; Russo P
Phys Med Biol; 2019 Jun; 64(12):125012. PubMed ID: 31141793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
