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 *

83 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21397423)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
    Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
    Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Variations in breast doses for an automatic mammography unit.
    Bor D; Tükel S; Olgar T; Aydin E
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2008 Sep; 14(3):122-6. PubMed ID: 18814131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. INSTITUTIONAL BREAST DOSES IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
    Lekatou A; Metaxas V; Messaris G; Antzele P; Tzavellas G; Panayiotakis G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):239-251. PubMed ID: 30753684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Comparison of full-field digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for breast disease diagnosis].
    Wang Q; Hu GD; Kuang J; Li JM
    Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao; 2009 Feb; 29(2):292-4. PubMed ID: 19246303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A critical comparison of three full field digital mammography systems using figure of merit.
    Kanaga KC; Yap HH; Laila SE; Sulaiman T; Zaharah M; Shantini AA
    Med J Malaysia; 2010 Jun; 65(2):119-22. PubMed ID: 23756795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [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]  

  • 28. A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography.
    Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Yaffe M; Alm Carlsson G
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jul; 50(13):3143-52. PubMed ID: 15972986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
    Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Mammography -a guidance level and the present situation of mammographic dose-].
    Terada H
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(2):65-73. PubMed ID: 12766282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters.
    Dhou S; Dalah E; AlGhafeer R; Hamidu A; Obaideen A
    J Imaging; 2022 Jul; 8(8):. PubMed ID: 36005454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
    Kalathaki M; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Tritakis P; Kalyvas N; Simantirakis G; Manousaridis G; Kaisas I; Kamenopoulou V
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Individual doses for women undergoing screening mammography examinations in Poland in 2007.
    Fabiszewska E; Jankowska K; Grabska I; Skrzyński W
    J Radiol Prot; 2011 Dec; 31(4):467-75. PubMed ID: 22088977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Glandularity and mean glandular dose determined for individual women at four regional breast cancer screening units in the Netherlands.
    Zoetelief J; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Jansen JT
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(7):1807-17. PubMed ID: 16552106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Investigation of mean glandular dose versus compressed breast thickness relationship for mammography.
    Bor D; Tukel S; Olgar T; Toklu T; Aydin E; Akyol O
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):160-4. PubMed ID: 18420560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography].
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2000 Nov; 172(11):940-5. PubMed ID: 11142129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Evaluation of patient dose during a digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Shakya S; Sulwathura U; Wickramanayake M; Dulshara T; Herath LHMIM; Wickramasinghe WMIS; Senanayake G
    Radiography (Lond); 2023 May; 29(3):573-576. PubMed ID: 36996507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Optimisation of X-ray examinations in Lithuania: start of implementation in mammography.
    Adliene D; Adlys G; Cerapaite R; Jonaitiene E; Cibulskaite I
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):399-402. PubMed ID: 15933145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients.
    Ciraj-Bjelac O; Beciric S; Arandjic D; Kosutic D; Kovacevic M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 20159918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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