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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20505033)

  • 1. X-ray absorptiometry of the breast using mammographic exposure factors: application to units featuring automatic beam quality selection.
    Kotre CJ
    Br J Radiol; 2010 Jun; 83(990):515-23. PubMed ID: 20505033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography.
    Kruger RL; Schueler BA
    Med Phys; 2001 Jul; 28(7):1449-54. PubMed ID: 11488578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dual-energy digital mammography: calibration and inverse-mapping techniques to estimate calcification thickness and glandular-tissue ratio.
    Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2003 Jun; 30(6):1110-7. PubMed ID: 12852535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Updated breast CT dose coefficients (DgN
    Hernandez AM; Becker AE; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1455-1466. PubMed ID: 30661250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
    Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
    Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients.
    Klein R; Aichinger H; Dierker J; Jansen JT; Joite-Barfuss S; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Zoetelief J
    Phys Med Biol; 1997 Apr; 42(4):651-71. PubMed ID: 9127443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography.
    McParland BJ; Boyd MM
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Jun; 73(870):613-26. PubMed ID: 10911785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantification of breast density with dual energy mammography: an experimental feasibility study.
    Ducote JL; Molloi S
    Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):793-801. PubMed ID: 20229889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effective x-ray attenuation coefficient measurements from two full field digital mammography systems for data calibration applications.
    Heine JJ; Thomas JA
    Biomed Eng Online; 2008 Mar; 7():13. PubMed ID: 18373863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dose and image quality in mammography with an automatic beam quality system.
    Young KC; Ramsdale ML; Rust A
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jun; 69(822):555-62. PubMed ID: 8757659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Single x-ray absorptiometry method for the quantitative mammographic measure of fibroglandular tissue volume.
    Malkov S; Wang J; Kerlikowske K; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA
    Med Phys; 2009 Dec; 36(12):5525-36. PubMed ID: 20095265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Breast image pre-processing for mammographic tissue segmentation.
    He W; Hogg P; Juette A; Denton ER; Zwiggelaar R
    Comput Biol Med; 2015 Dec; 67():61-73. PubMed ID: 26498046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Automatic exposure control for a slot scanning full field digital mammography system.
    Elbakri IA; Lakshminarayanan AV; Tesic MM
    Med Phys; 2005 Sep; 32(9):2763-70. PubMed ID: 16266089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Technical challenges in generalizing calibration techniques for breast density measurements.
    Fowler EEE; Smallwood AM; Khan NZ; Kilpatrick K; Sellers TA; Heine J
    Med Phys; 2019 Feb; 46(2):679-688. PubMed ID: 30525207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Simulation study of a quasi-monochromatic beam for x-ray computed mammotomography.
    McKinley RL; Tornai MP; Samei E; Bradshaw ML
    Med Phys; 2004 Apr; 31(4):800-13. PubMed ID: 15124997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Quantification of breast density with dual energy mammography: a simulation study.
    Ducote JL; Molloi S
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5411-8. PubMed ID: 19175100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A volumetric method for estimation of breast density on digitized screen-film mammograms.
    Pawluczyk O; Augustine BJ; Yaffe MJ; Rico D; Yang J; Mawdsley GE; Boyd NF
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):352-64. PubMed ID: 12674236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Error analysis of calibration materials on dual-energy mammography.
    Mou X; Chen X
    Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2007; 10(Pt 2):596-603. PubMed ID: 18044617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.