134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21225367)
1. Dosimetric and image quality comparison of two digital mammography units with different target/filter combinations: Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh, W/Rh, W/Ag.
Emanuelli S; Rizzi E; Amerio S; Fasano C; Cesarani F
Radiol Med; 2011 Mar; 116(2):310-8. PubMed ID: 21225367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. [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]
4. 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]
5. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
Alkhalifah K; Brindabhan A; Alsaeed R
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Radiation dose evaluation in a photon-counting digital mammography unit].
Matsubara K; Matsumoto C; Mochiya Y; Toda K; Noto K; Koshida K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2014 May; 70(5):445-52. PubMed ID: 24858289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.
Nishino TK; Wu X; Johnson RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):960-3. PubMed ID: 16177415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.
Alkhalifah K; Brindhaban A
Med Princ Pract; 2018; 27(3):211-216. PubMed ID: 29514152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Image Quality and Radiation Dose for Fibrofatty Breast using Target/filter Combinations in Two Digital Mammography Systems.
Alkhalifah K; Asbeutah A; Brindhaban A
J Clin Imaging Sci; 2020; 10():56. PubMed ID: 33024611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum.
Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Jesneck JL; Lo JY
Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):588-99. PubMed ID: 15789606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Investigation of the effect of anode/filter materials on the dose and image quality of a digital mammography system based on an amorphous selenium flat panel detector.
Baldelli P; Phelan N; Egan G
Br J Radiol; 2010 Apr; 83(988):290-5. PubMed ID: 20019173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mean glandular dose coefficients (D(g)N) for x-ray spectra used in contemporary breast imaging systems.
Nosratieh A; Hernandez A; Shen SZ; Yaffe MJ; Seibert JA; Boone JM
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Sep; 60(18):7179-90. PubMed ID: 26348995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study.
Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
