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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21988547)

  • 1. Reconstruction of absorbed doses to fibroglandular tissue of the breast of women undergoing mammography (1960 to the present).
    Thierry-Chef I; Simon SL; Weinstock RM; Kwon D; Linet MS
    Radiat Res; 2012 Jan; 177(1):92-108. PubMed ID: 21988547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mean glandular dose in digital mamography in women with breast implants.
    Couto LS; Freitas-Junior R; Correa RS; Peixoto JE; Almeida CD; Rodrigues DCN; Glassman LM; Soares LR
    J Radiol Prot; 2019 Apr; 39(2):498-510. PubMed ID: 30812019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype.
    Sechopoulos I; Feng SS; D'Orsi CJ
    Med Phys; 2010 Aug; 37(8):4110-20. PubMed ID: 20879571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Breast compression and radiation dose in two different mammographic oblique projections: 45 and 60 degrees.
    Brnić Z; Hebrang A
    Eur J Radiol; 2001 Oct; 40(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 11673002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. Patient dose in digital mammography.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Investigating energy deposition in glandular tissues for mammography using multiscale Monte Carlo simulations.
    Oliver PAK; Thomson RM
    Med Phys; 2019 Mar; 46(3):1426-1436. PubMed ID: 30657190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Characterization of the homogeneous tissue mixture approximation in breast imaging dosimetry.
    Sechopoulos I; Bliznakova K; Qin X; Fei B; Feng SS
    Med Phys; 2012 Aug; 39(8):5050-9. PubMed ID: 22894430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mean glandular dose in the mammary gland and dose of radiation in the thyroid gland and lens in women with and without breast implants during different modalities of mammography.
    Pérez Fuentes JA; Roldán Sánchez VS; Gordillo Ledesma AK; Mena AF; Brito S; Soteldo C
    Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2022 Mar; 64 Suppl 1():11-19. PubMed ID: 35428461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of the uterine dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Cepeda Martins AR; Di Maria S; Afonso J; Pereira M; Pereira J; Vaz P
    Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):333-339. PubMed ID: 34565679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.
    Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Averbukh A; Moran C; Berns EA; Yaffe MJ; Herman B; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9. PubMed ID: 20093597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of average glandular dose in mammography practice of a teaching hospital in Ghana.
    Kyei KA; Anim-Sampong S; Ahulu EN; Antwi WK; Daniels J
    Pan Afr Med J; 2024; 47():42. PubMed ID: 38681097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. AVERAGE GLANDULAR DOSES AND NATIONAL DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELS IN MAMMOGRAPHY EXAMINATIONS IN TURKEY.
    Parmaksız A; Ataç GK; Bulur E; İnal T; Alhan A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Aug; 190(1):100-107. PubMed ID: 32556186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.