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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16733678)

  • 1. Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; di Maggio C
    Eur Radiol; 2006 Nov; 16(11):2559-66. PubMed ID: 16733678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
    Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Munzel U; Baum F; Grabbe E
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
    [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. [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. [Visualization of microcalcifications on mammographies obtained by digital full-field mammography in comparison to conventional film-screen mammography].
    Diekmann S; Bick U; von Heyden H; Diekmann F
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):775-9. PubMed ID: 12811689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey.
    Gennaro G; Baldelli P; Taibi A; Di Maggio C; Gambaccini M
    Eur Radiol; 2004 Apr; 14(4):645-52. PubMed ID: 12920561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Funke M; Grabbe EH
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
    Lazzari B; Belli G; Gori C; Rosselli Del Turco M
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2730-43. PubMed ID: 17821981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screening.
    Stanton L; Day JL; Villafana T; Miller CH; Lightfoot DA
    Radiology; 1987 May; 163(2):471-9. PubMed ID: 3562829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.