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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16878572)

  • 1. Uncertainties of exposure-related quantities in mammographic x-ray unit quality control.
    Gregory KJ; Pattison JE; Bibbo G
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):687-98. PubMed ID: 16878572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
    Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quality control programme in mammography: second level quality controls.
    Nassivera E; Nardin L
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Jun; 70(834):612-8. PubMed ID: 9227255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. X-ray spectroscopy in mammography with a silicon PIN photodiode with application to the measurement of tube voltage.
    Künzel R; Herdade SB; Terini RA; Costa PR
    Med Phys; 2004 Nov; 31(11):2996-3003. PubMed ID: 15587652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.
    Bloomquist AK; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Mawdsley GE; Bright S; Shen SZ; Mahesh M; Nickoloff EL; Fleischman RC; Williams MB; Maidment AD; Beideck DJ; Och J; Seibert JA
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer.
    Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Apr; 74(880):335-40. PubMed ID: 11387152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of radiation dose, focal spot, and automatic exposure of newer film-screen mammography units.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Nov; 149(5):913-7. PubMed ID: 3499794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A calibration approach to glandular tissue composition estimation in digital mammography.
    Kaufhold J; Thomas JA; Eberhard JW; Galbo CE; Trotter DE
    Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1867-80. PubMed ID: 12201434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
    Weigel S; Girnus R; Czwoydzinski J; Decker T; Spital S; Heindel W
    Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Results of an automatic evaluation of test images according to PAS 1054 and IEC 6220-1-2 on different types of digital mammographic units].
    Blendl C; Schreiber AC; Buhr H
    Rofo; 2009 Oct; 181(10):979-88. PubMed ID: 19676013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial.
    Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist AK; Mawdsley GE; Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Fajardo LL; Boone JM; Kanal K; Mahesh M; Fleischman RC; Och J; Williams MB; Beideck DJ; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):737-52. PubMed ID: 16878576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mismatch in breast and detector size during screening and diagnostic mammography results in increased patient radiation dose.
    Wells CL; Slanetz PJ; Rosen MP
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Jan; 21(1):99-103. PubMed ID: 24331271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
    Klausz R; Shramchenko N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Description and benefits of dynamic collimation in digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Popova Y; Hersemeule G; Klausz R; Souchay H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):321-4. PubMed ID: 25836693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Radiologist evaluation of an X-ray tube-based diffraction-enhanced imaging prototype using full-thickness breast specimens.
    Faulconer L; Parham C; Connor DM; Zhong Z; Kim E; Zeng D; Livasy C; Cole E; Kuzmiak C; Koomen M; Pavic D; Pisano E
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Nov; 16(11):1329-37. PubMed ID: 19596593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.
    Tomon JJ; Johnson TE; Swenson KN; Schauer DA
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
    Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.