409 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933142)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Optimisation of X-ray examinations in Lithuania: start of implementation in mammography.
Adliene D; Adlys G; Cerapaite R; Jonaitiene E; Cibulskaite I
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):399-402. PubMed ID: 15933145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography.
Feig SA; Yaffe MJ
Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1205-30. PubMed ID: 7480666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system.
Morán P; Chevalier M; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Vañó E
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):375-9. PubMed ID: 15933140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - Clinical results.
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Marten K; Kehbel S; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2002 Jun; 174(6):696-9. PubMed ID: 12063597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
Muhogora WE; Devetti A; Padovani R; Msaki P; Bonutti F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
[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. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quality assurance in screening mammography.
Health Devices; 1990; 19(5-6):152-98. PubMed ID: 2372321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [Digital mammography and computer assisted diagnosis].
Stines J; Noël A; Lévy L; Séradour B; Heid P
J Radiol; 2002 Apr; 83(4 Pt 2):581-90. PubMed ID: 12075167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Detection of clustered microcalcifications in small field digital mammography.
Arodź T; Kurdziel M; Popiela TJ; Sevre EO; Yuen DA
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2006 Jan; 81(1):56-65. PubMed ID: 16310282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Digital detectors in mammography. A technological overview.
Dhaenens F
JBR-BTR; 2000 Apr; 83(2):84-7. PubMed ID: 10859905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
