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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20200100)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. An assessment of the use of skin flashes in helical tomotherapy using phantom and in-vivo dosimetry.
    Tournel K; Verellen D; Duchateau M; Fierens Y; Linthout N; Reynders T; Voordeckers M; Storme G
    Radiother Oncol; 2007 Jul; 84(1):34-9. PubMed ID: 17590468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Absorbed radiation dose in mammography.
    Hammerstein GR; Miller DW; White DR; Masterson ME; Woodard HQ; Laughlin JS
    Radiology; 1979 Feb; 130(2):485-91. PubMed ID: 760167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Matching the dosimetry characteristics of a dual-field Stanford technique to a customized single-field Stanford technique for total skin electron therapy.
    Chen Z; Agostinelli AG; Wilson LD; Nath R
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2004 Jul; 59(3):872-85. PubMed ID: 15183491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Assessment of skin dose for breast chest wall radiotherapy as a function of bolus material.
    Hsu SH; Roberson PL; Chen Y; Marsh RB; Pierce LJ; Moran JM
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 May; 53(10):2593-606. PubMed ID: 18441412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography].
    Säbel M; Aichinger U; Schulz-Wendtland R
    Rofo; 2001 Feb; 173(2):79-91. PubMed ID: 11253092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Chest CT performed with 3D and z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique: breast and effective doses.
    Matsubara K; Takata T; Koshida K; Noto K; Shimono T; Horii J; Yamamoto T; Matsui O
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Apr; 16(4):450-5. PubMed ID: 19268857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Towards proposition of a diagnostic reference level for mammographic examination in the greater Khorasan Province, Iran.
    Bahreyni Toossi MT; Zare H; Bayani Roodi Sh; Hashemi M; Akbari F; Malekzadeh M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jun; 155(1):96-9. PubMed ID: 23209184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. JOURNAL CLUB: Scatter Radiation Dose From Digital Screening Mammography Measured in a Representative Patient Population.
    Chetlen AL; Brown KL; King SH; Kasales CJ; Schetter SE; Mack JA; Zhu J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Feb; 206(2):359-64; quiz 365. PubMed ID: 26797364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Entrance skin exposure and mean glandular dose: effect of scatter and field gradient at mammography.
    Ng KH; Aus RJ; DeWerd LA; Vetter JR
    Radiology; 1997 Nov; 205(2):395-8. PubMed ID: 9356619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Survey of radiological techniques and doses of children undergoing some common x-ray examinations in three hospitals in Nigeria.
    Ogundare FO; Ajibola CL; Balogun FA
    Med Phys; 2004 Mar; 31(3):521-4. PubMed ID: 15070249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dose evaluation in paediatric radiology and adult bone densitometry examinations.
    Azevedo JP; de Oliveira MG; Cunha CJ; Valerio ME; Souza DN
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006; 120(1-4):91-4. PubMed ID: 16644962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of entrance surface doses of some X ray examinations with CEC reference doses.
    Ogunseyinde AO; Adeniran SA; Obed RI; Akinlade BI; Ogundare FO
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2002; 98(2):231-4. PubMed ID: 11930883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effective lifetime radiation risk for a number of national mammography screening programmes.
    M Ali RMK; England A; McEntee MF; Mercer CE; Tootell A; Hogg P
    Radiography (Lond); 2018 Aug; 24(3):240-246. PubMed ID: 29976337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Evaluation of radiation doses in mammography].
    Lee SK; Hwang SK; Lee LN; Lou GC; Wang CA; Hsu WJ
    Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei); 1993 Mar; 51(3):200-7. PubMed ID: 8490794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. TLD measurements of in vivo mammographic exposures and the calculated mean glandular dose across the United States.
    Gentry JR; DeWerd LA
    Med Phys; 1996 Jun; 23(6):899-903. PubMed ID: 8798175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. In vivo absorbed dose measurements in mammography using a new real-time luminescence technique.
    Aznar MC; Hemdal B; Medin J; Marckmann CJ; Andersen CE; Bøtter-Jensen L; Andersson I; Mattsson S
    Br J Radiol; 2005 Apr; 78(928):328-34. PubMed ID: 15774593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Radiation dose in mammography: an energy-balance approach.
    Shrivastava PN
    Radiology; 1981 Aug; 140(2):483-90. PubMed ID: 7255726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Investigation of thyroid dose due to mammography.
    Whelan C; McLean D; Poulos A
    Australas Radiol; 1999 Aug; 43(3):307-10. PubMed ID: 10901923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.