225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933148)
1. Average glandular dose conversion coefficients for segmented breast voxel models.
Zankl M; Fill U; Hoeschen C; Panzer W; Regulla D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):410-4. PubMed ID: 15933148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms.
Dance DR; Hunt RA; Bakic PR; Maidment AD; Sandborg M; Ullman G; Alm Carlsson G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):359-63. PubMed ID: 15933137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. A high-resolution voxel phantom of the breast for dose calculations in mammography.
Hoeschen C; Fill U; Zankl M; Panzer W; Regulla D; Döhring W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):406-9. PubMed ID: 15933147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Updated breast CT dose coefficients (DgN
Hernandez AM; Becker AE; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1455-1466. PubMed ID: 30661250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion coefficients for dose estimation in mammography based on a 3D detailed breast model.
Wang W; Qiu R; Ren L; Liu H; Wu Z; Li C; Niu Y; Li J
Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2503-2514. PubMed ID: 28295395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. [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]
12. Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; Del Sarto D; Fantacci ME; Russo P
Phys Med Biol; 2021 Mar; 66(6):065024. PubMed ID: 33535193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Introducing DeBRa: a detailed breast model for radiological studies.
Ma AK; Gunn S; Darambara DG
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jul; 54(14):4533-45. PubMed ID: 19556683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Monte Carlo generated conversion factors for the estimation of average glandular dose in contact and magnification mammography.
Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5539-48. PubMed ID: 17047268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of subject contrast and normalized average glandular dose by semi-analytical models.
Tomal A; Poletti ME; Caldas LV
Appl Radiat Isot; 2010; 68(4-5):755-9. PubMed ID: 19836251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Breast dose in mammography is about 30% lower when realistic heterogeneous glandular distributions are considered.
Hernandez AM; Seibert JA; Boone JM
Med Phys; 2015 Nov; 42(11):6337-48. PubMed ID: 26520725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography].
Säbel M; Aichinger U; Schulz-Wendtland R
Rofo; 2001 Feb; 173(2):79-91. PubMed ID: 11253092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Monte Carlo simulation for the estimation of the glandular breast dose for a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
Rodrigues L; Magalhaes LA; Braz D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Dec; 167(4):576-83. PubMed ID: 25480841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
