300 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15967314)
1. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [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]
3. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. [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]
8. Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh, and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography.
Gingold EL; Wu X; Barnes GT
Radiology; 1995 Jun; 195(3):639-44. PubMed ID: 7753987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography?
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. [X-ray phase imaging using a X-ray tube with a small focal spot -improvement of image quality in mammography-].
Honda C; Ohara H; Ishisaka A; Shimada F; Endo T
Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 12766293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
