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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21123310)

  • 1. Development of an imaging-planning program for screen/film and computed radiography mammography for breasts with short chest wall to nipple distance.
    Dong SL; Su JL; Yeh YH; Chu TC; Lin YC; Chuang KS
    Br J Radiol; 2011 Apr; 84(1000):350-7. PubMed ID: 21123310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mammography in the evaluation of nipple inversion.
    Kalbhen CL; Kezdi-Rogus PC; Dowling MP; Flisak ME
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):117-21. PubMed ID: 9423612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
    Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.
    Shafer CM; Samei E; Lo JY
    Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):1004-16. PubMed ID: 20384236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Fully automated nipple detection in digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Chae SH; Jeong JW; Choi JH; Chae EY; Kim HH; Choi YW; Lee S
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2017 May; 143():113-120. PubMed ID: 28391808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
    Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: first application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women.
    Baek JE; Kang BJ; Kim SH; Lee HS
    World J Surg Oncol; 2017 Feb; 15(1):38. PubMed ID: 28153022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Determination of equivalent breast phantoms for different age groups of Taiwanese women: an experimental approach.
    Dong SL; Chu TC; Lin YC; Lan GY; Yeh YH; Chen S; Chuanga KS
    Med Phys; 2011 Jul; 38(7):4094-100. PubMed ID: 21859009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT.
    Boone JM; Kwan AL; Seibert JA; Shah N; Lindfors KK; Nelson TR
    Med Phys; 2005 Dec; 32(12):3767-76. PubMed ID: 16475776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automatic detection of the nipple in screen-film and full-field digital mammograms using a novel Hessian-based method.
    Casti P; Mencattini A; Salmeri M; Ancona A; Mangieri FF; Pepe ML; Rangayyan RM
    J Digit Imaging; 2013 Oct; 26(5):948-57. PubMed ID: 23508373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screening.
    Stanton L; Day JL; Villafana T; Miller CH; Lightfoot DA
    Radiology; 1987 May; 163(2):471-9. PubMed ID: 3562829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Development of a phantom to test fully automated breast density software - A work in progress.
    Waade GG; Hofvind S; Thompson JD; Highnam R; Hogg P
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Feb; 23(1):e14-e19. PubMed ID: 28290354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector.
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program.
    Heddson B; Rönnow K; Olsson M; Miller D
    Eur J Radiol; 2007 Dec; 64(3):419-25. PubMed ID: 17383841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.