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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16552106)

  • 1. Glandularity and mean glandular dose determined for individual women at four regional breast cancer screening units in the Netherlands.
    Zoetelief J; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Jansen JT
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(7):1807-17. PubMed ID: 16552106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Method for determination of the mean fraction of glandular tissue in individual female breasts using mammography.
    Jansen JT; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; van Woudenberg S; Zoetelief J
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(24):5953-67. PubMed ID: 16333166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Investigation of mean glandular dose versus compressed breast thickness relationship for mammography.
    Bor D; Tukel S; Olgar T; Toklu T; Aydin E; Akyol O
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):160-4. PubMed ID: 18420560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 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. Patient dose in digital mammography.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography.
    Smathers RL; Boone JM; Lee LJ; Berns EA; Miller RA; Wright AM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 May; 188(5):1414-21. PubMed ID: 17449790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Investigation of breast dose in five screening mammography centres in Greece.
    Tsapaki V; Tsalafoutas IA; Poga V; Louizi A; Kottou S; Koulentianos E
    J Radiol Prot; 2008 Sep; 28(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 18714130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Real-time estimation system for mean glandular dose in mammography.
    Matsumoto M; Inoue S; Honda I; Yamamoto S; Ueguchi T; Ogata Y; Johkoh T
    Radiat Med; 2003; 21(6):280-4. PubMed ID: 14743903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Prediction of glandularity and breast radiation dose from mammography results in Japanese women.
    Yamamuro M; Asai Y; Yamada K; Ozaki Y; Matsumoto M; Murakami T
    Med Biol Eng Comput; 2019 Jan; 57(1):289-298. PubMed ID: 30099671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients.
    Klein R; Aichinger H; Dierker J; Jansen JT; Joite-Barfuss S; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Zoetelief J
    Phys Med Biol; 1997 Apr; 42(4):651-71. PubMed ID: 9127443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Individual doses for women undergoing screening mammography examinations in Poland in 2007.
    Fabiszewska E; Jankowska K; Grabska I; Skrzyński W
    J Radiol Prot; 2011 Dec; 31(4):467-75. PubMed ID: 22088977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients.
    Ciraj-Bjelac O; Beciric S; Arandjic D; Kosutic D; Kovacevic M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 20159918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.