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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15446786)

  • 21. Improved image quality in digital mammography with image processing.
    Baydush AH; Floyd CE
    Med Phys; 2000 Jul; 27(7):1503-8. PubMed ID: 10947253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effects of x-ray beam equalization on mammographic imaging.
    Lam KL; Chan HP
    Med Phys; 1990; 17(2):242-9. PubMed ID: 2333050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
    Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
    Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. X-ray beam equalization: feasibility and performance of an automated prototype system in a phantom and swine.
    Molloi S; Van Drie A; Wang F
    Radiology; 2001 Dec; 221(3):668-75. PubMed ID: 11719661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
    Klausz R; Shramchenko N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
    Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Simulation study of a quasi-monochromatic beam for x-ray computed mammotomography.
    McKinley RL; Tornai MP; Samei E; Bradshaw ML
    Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):800-13. PubMed ID: 15124997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Rejection and redistribution of scattered radiation in scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR): simulation with spot images.
    Liu X; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2718-29. PubMed ID: 17821980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Analytical optimization of digital subtraction mammography with contrast medium using a commercial unit.
    Rosado-Méndez I; Palma BA; Brandan ME
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5544-57. PubMed ID: 19175112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. X-ray scattering in full-field digital mammography.
    Nykänen K; Siltanen S
    Med Phys; 2003 Jul; 30(7):1864-73. PubMed ID: 12906205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dose optimization in cardiac x-ray imaging.
    Gislason-Lee AJ; McMillan C; Cowen AR; Davies AG
    Med Phys; 2013 Sep; 40(9):091911. PubMed ID: 24007162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Monochromatic x-rays for low-dose digital mammography: preliminary results.
    Yoon KH; Kwon YM; Choi BJ; Son HH; Ryu CW; Chon KS; Park SH; Juhng SK
    Invest Radiol; 2012 Dec; 47(12):683-7. PubMed ID: 22996316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. AEC for scanning digital mammography based on variation of scan velocity.
    Aslund M; Cederström B; Lundqvist M; Danielsson M
    Med Phys; 2005 Nov; 32(11):3367-74. PubMed ID: 16370424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Innovative monochromatic x-ray source for high-quality and low-dose medical imaging.
    Silver EH; Shulman SD; Rehani MM
    Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 48(3):1064-1078. PubMed ID: 33368354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
    Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.