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.
6. [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]
7. Effects of a defective filter on magnification image quality in mammography. Cardenosa G; Eklund GW Radiology; 1992 Mar; 182(3):894-5. PubMed ID: 1535914 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The determination of total filtration on mammographic X-ray sets. Robson KJ; Kotre CJ; Faulkner K Br J Radiol; 1992 Apr; 65(772):334-8. PubMed ID: 1581792 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of x-ray spectra and outputs from molybdenum and tungsten targets. Marshall M; Peaple LH; Ardran GM; Crooks HE Br J Radiol; 1975 Jan; 48(565):31-9. PubMed ID: 1109625 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Dosimetric and qualitative evaluations of the use of rhodium filtration in mammography]. Burke P; Luparia E; Frigerio A; Marra V; Milani R; Di Benedetto A; Simeone F Radiol Med; 1994 Sep; 88(3):295-300. PubMed ID: 7938738 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Calibration of ion chambers for use in mammography. Law J Br J Radiol; 1993 Jan; 66(781):51-4. PubMed ID: 8428251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A calibration comparison of mammographic kVp meters. Simeoni RJ; Thiele DL Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1992 Mar; 15(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 1575649 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of x-ray spectra from molybdenum and tungsten target tubes on image quality in mammography. Haus AG; Metz CE; Chiles JT; Rossmann K Radiology; 1976 Mar; 118(3):705-9. PubMed ID: 1251024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Magnification mammography: a low-dose technique. Arnold BA; Eisenberg H; Bjarngard BE Radiology; 1979 Jun; 131(3):743-9. PubMed ID: 441382 [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. Generators, x-ray tubes, and exposure geometry in mammography. Villafana T Radiographics; 1990 May; 10(3):539-54. PubMed ID: 2343172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Absorbed dose in mammography using three tungsten and three molybdenum target tubes. Palmer RC; Egan RL; Tanner BK; Barnette PA Radiology; 1971 Dec; 101(3):697-9. PubMed ID: 5129114 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]