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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16333166)

  • 21. Mammographic breast glandularity in Malaysian women: data derived from radiography.
    Jamal N; Ng KH; McLean D; Looi LM; Moosa F
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Mar; 182(3):713-7. PubMed ID: 14975974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Dosimetric implications of age related glandular changes in screening mammography.
    Beckett JR; Kotre CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2000 Mar; 45(3):801-13. PubMed ID: 10730972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Conformance of mean glandular dose from phantom and patient data in mammography.
    Kelaranta A; Toroi P; Timonen M; Komssi S; Kortesniemi M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Apr; 164(3):342-53. PubMed ID: 25114321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. TLD measurements of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States.
    Gentry JR; DeWerd LA
    Med Phys; 1996 Jun; 23(6):899-903. PubMed ID: 8798175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Breast glandularity and mean glandular dose assessment using a deep learning framework: Virtual patients study.
    Massera RT; Tomal A
    Phys Med; 2021 Mar; 83():264-277. PubMed ID: 33984580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 3D phantom for image quality assessment of mammography systems.
    Bermúdez J; Roque G; Calderón J; Pardo P; Sánchez M; Ramos V; Ávila C
    Phys Med Biol; 2023 Oct; 68(20):. PubMed ID: 37733054
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.
    Dance DR; Skinner CL; Young KC; Beckett JR; Kotre CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2000 Nov; 45(11):3225-40. PubMed ID: 11098900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The effect of an organized, nationwide breast cancer screening programme on non-organized mammography activities.
    Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Pintér I; Battyány I; Ember I
    J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):14-7. PubMed ID: 18416949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Estimating mean glandular dose using proprietary mammography phantoms.
    Hartley LD; Cobb BJ; Hutchinson DE
    Appl Radiat Isot; 1999 Jan; 50(1):205-13. PubMed ID: 10028638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Mammogram registration: a phantom-based evaluation of compressed breast thickness variation effects.
    Richard FJ; Bakić PR; Maidment AD
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2006 Feb; 25(2):188-97. PubMed ID: 16468453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium.
    Smans K; Bosmans H; Xiao M; Carton AK; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):321-6. PubMed ID: 16464839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [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]  

  • 33. Dosimetric evaluation of the mean glandular dose for mammography in Korean women: a preliminary report.
    Oh KK; Hur J; Kim EK; Choo SS
    Yonsei Med J; 2003 Oct; 44(5):863-8. PubMed ID: 14584104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Mammography equipment performance, image quality and mean glandular dose in Malta.
    Borg M; Badr I; Royle GJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Sep; 156(2):168-83. PubMed ID: 23525916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. [A computerized manual for assessing the dosage absorbed by breast tissue in mammography].
    Bagni B; Pedrazzini L
    Radiol Med; 1988 Nov; 76(5):479-85. PubMed ID: 3060905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. An estimate of the influence of the measurement procedure on patient and phantom doses in breast imaging.
    Avramova-Cholakova S; Vassileva J; Borisova R; Atanasova I
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):150-4. PubMed ID: 18426848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accurate estimation of compressed breast thickness in mammography.
    Mawdsley GE; Tyson AH; Peressotti CL; Jong RA; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2009 Feb; 36(2):577-86. PubMed ID: 19291997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A tissue-equivalent phantom series for mammography dosimetry.
    Argo WP; Hintenlang K; Hintenlang DE
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2004; 5(4):112-9. PubMed ID: 15738925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The effect of breast composition on absorbed dose and image contrast.
    Skubic SE; Fatouros PP
    Med Phys; 1989; 16(4):544-52. PubMed ID: 2770628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.