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 *

398 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15972986)

  • 21. Mean glandular dose coefficients (D(g)N) for x-ray spectra used in contemporary breast imaging systems.
    Nosratieh A; Hernandez A; Shen SZ; Yaffe MJ; Seibert JA; Boone JM
    Phys Med Biol; 2015 Sep; 60(18):7179-90. PubMed ID: 26348995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Monochromatic x-rays in digital mammography.
    Lawaczeck R; Arkadiev V; Diekmann F; Krumrey M
    Invest Radiol; 2005 Jan; 40(1):33-9. PubMed ID: 15597018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems.
    Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 May; 54(9):2845-61. PubMed ID: 19384004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. X-ray spectroscopy applied to radiation shielding calculation in mammography.
    Künzel R; Levenhagen RS; Herdade SB; Terini RA; Costa PR
    Med Phys; 2008 Aug; 35(8):3539-45. PubMed ID: 18777914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
    Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
    Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
    Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Automatic technique parameter selection on a digital mammography system: an evaluation of SNR and CNR as a function of AGD on a GE senographe DS.
    Thomson FJ
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2006 Sep; 29(3):251-6. PubMed ID: 17058586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Effect of X-ray tube parameters, iodine concentration, and patient size on image quality in pulmonary computed tomography angiography: a chest-phantom-study.
    Szucs-Farkas Z; Verdun FR; von Allmen G; Mini RL; Vock P
    Invest Radiol; 2008 Jun; 43(6):374-81. PubMed ID: 18496042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.
    Shrestha S; Vedantham S; Karellas A
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(5):1969-1993. PubMed ID: 28075335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. New contrast media designed for x-ray energy subtraction imaging in digital mammography.
    Lawaczeck R; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Hamm B; Bick U; Press WR; Schirmer H; Schön K; Weinmann HJ
    Invest Radiol; 2003 Sep; 38(9):602-8. PubMed ID: 12960530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation.
    Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4221-35. PubMed ID: 17153401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
    Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector.
    Baldelli P; Phelan N; Egan G
    Br J Radiol; 2010 Apr; 83(988):290-5. PubMed ID: 20019173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.