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.
603 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17436182)
1. [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]
2. 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]
3. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography]. Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography]. Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Grabbe E Rofo; 2000 Nov; 172(11):940-5. PubMed ID: 11142129 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Experimental phantom lesion detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system. Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Lell M; Böhner C; Bautz WA; Mertelmeier T Rofo; 2006 Dec; 178(12):1219-23. PubMed ID: 17136645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Studies on image quality in mammography using a tungsten anode tube in conjunction with edge filters]. Minski M; Säbel M; Aichinger H; Joite-Barfuss S Rofo; 1988 Apr; 148(4):437-43. PubMed ID: 2834793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system. Marshall NW Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems]. Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Lell M; Kuchar I; Bautz W Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Progress in mammography technics. Bimetal anode tubes and selective filtration technic]. Küchler M; Friedrich M Rofo; 1993 Jul; 159(1):91-6. PubMed ID: 8334265 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography. Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Are phantoms useful for predicting the potential of dose reduction in full-field digital mammography? Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Alberelli C; di Maggio C Phys Med Biol; 2005 Apr; 50(8):1851-70. PubMed ID: 15815100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Ambient dose equivalent and effective dose from scattered x-ray spectra in mammography for Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh and W/Rh anode/filter combinations. Künzel R; Herdade SB; Costa PR; Terini RA; Levenhagen RS Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(8):2077-91. PubMed ID: 16585846 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]