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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2025777)

  • 41. Method for determination of the mean fraction of glandular tissue in individual female breasts using mammography.
    Jansen JT; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; van Woudenberg S; Zoetelief J
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(24):5953-67. PubMed ID: 16333166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Investigation of breast dose in five screening mammography centres in Greece.
    Tsapaki V; Tsalafoutas IA; Poga V; Louizi A; Kottou S; Koulentianos E
    J Radiol Prot; 2008 Sep; 28(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 18714130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. [Mammography screening--neglected aspects of radiation risks].
    Kuni H; Schmitz-Feuerhake I; Dieckmann H
    Gesundheitswesen; 2003 Jul; 65(7):443-6. PubMed ID: 12891476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Do women with dense breasts have higher radiation dose during screening mammography?
    Nguyen JV; Williams MB; Patrie JT; Harvey JA
    Breast J; 2018 Jan; 24(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 28590576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. [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]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme.
    Redpath JL; Mitchel RE
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Oct; 79(946):854-5; author reply 855-7. PubMed ID: 16980679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Mathematical modelling of radiation-induced cancer risk from breast screening by mammography.
    M Ali RMK; England A; Mercer C; Tootell A; Walton L; Schaake W; Hogg P
    Eur J Radiol; 2017 Nov; 96():98-103. PubMed ID: 29103483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. [Dose measurements in determining radiation exposure in mammography].
    Hoffmann R; Wolf R
    Rofo; 1984 Oct; 141(4):442-7. PubMed ID: 6436919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. [Current x-ray diagnostic problems in breast cancer (a review)].
    Rozhkova NI
    Med Radiol (Mosk); 1981 Nov; 26(11):68-73. PubMed ID: 7033712
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography.
    Wu X; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
    Radiology; 1991 Apr; 179(1):143-8. PubMed ID: 2006265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Magnification mammography: evaluation of screen-film and xeroradiographic techniques.
    Haus AG; Paulus DD; Dodd GD; Cowart RW; Bencomo J
    Radiology; 1979 Oct; 133(1):223-6. PubMed ID: 472295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. [The supposed cancer risk from mammography. Opposition to the assertions (author's transl)].
    Oeser H; Koeppe P; Rach K
    Rofo; 1976 Dec; 125(6):487-90. PubMed ID: 137843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A study of mean glandular dose during diagnostic mammography in Malaysia and some of the factors affecting it.
    Jamal N; Ng KH; McLean D
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Apr; 76(904):238-45. PubMed ID: 12711643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Benefits versus risks from mammography: a critical reassessment.
    Mettler FA; Upton AC; Kelsey CA; Ashby RN; Rosenberg RD; Linver MN
    Cancer; 1996 Mar; 77(5):903-9. PubMed ID: 8608482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Absorbed breast dose: dependence on radiographic modality and technique, and breast thickness.
    Skubic SE; Fatouros PP
    Radiology; 1986 Oct; 161(1):263-70. PubMed ID: 3763877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Dosimetric evaluation of the mean glandular dose for mammography in Korean women: a preliminary report.
    Oh KK; Hur J; Kim EK; Choo SS
    Yonsei Med J; 2003 Oct; 44(5):863-8. PubMed ID: 14584104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. [Radiation risk in mammography as presented by the media].
    Jung H
    Rofo; 1998 Oct; 169(4):335. PubMed ID: 9819643
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography.
    Jeukens CR; Lalji UC; Meijer E; Bakija B; Theunissen R; Wildberger JE; Lobbes MB
    Invest Radiol; 2014 Oct; 49(10):659-65. PubMed ID: 24872005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.