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 *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22223722)

  • 41. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography.
    Wu X; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
    Radiology; 1991 Apr; 179(1):143-8. PubMed ID: 2006265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Mammography of a phantom and breast tissue with synchrotron radiation and a linear-array silicon detector.
    Arfelli F; Bonvicini V; Bravin A; Cantatore G; Castelli E; Dalla Palma L; Di Michiel M; Longo R; Olivo A; Pani S; Pontoni D; Poropat P; Prest M; Rashevsky A; Tromba G; Vacchi A
    Radiology; 1998 Sep; 208(3):709-15. PubMed ID: 9722850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
    Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary X-ray spectra in mammography: computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data.
    Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2002 May; 29(5):869-75. PubMed ID: 12033583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A study to determine the differences between the displayed dose values for two full-field digitalmammography units and values calculated using a range of Monte-Carlo-based techniques:a phantom study.
    Borg M; Badr I; Royle GJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Apr; 154(2):217-28. PubMed ID: 22927653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: patient radiation dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code.
    Yakoumakis E; Tzamicha E; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):369-72. PubMed ID: 25836682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Development of realistic physical breast phantoms matched to virtual breast phantoms based on human subject data.
    Kiarashi N; Nolte AC; Sturgeon GM; Segars WP; Ghate SV; Nolte LW; Samei E; Lo JY
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):4116-26. PubMed ID: 26133612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. DOSE DISTRIBUTION IN A BREAST UNDERGOING MAMMOGRAPHY BASED ON A 3D DETAILED BREAST MODEL FOR CHINESE WOMEN.
    Wang W; Qiu R; Ren L; Feng Z; Wu Z; Li C; Niu Y; Li J
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2018 Oct; 181(3):221-228. PubMed ID: 29438509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Vanó E
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Jun; 67(798):556-63. PubMed ID: 8032809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Three-layer heterogeneous mammographic phantoms for Monte Carlo simulation of normalized glandular dose coefficients in mammography.
    Chang TY; Lai KJ; Tu CY; Wu J
    Sci Rep; 2020 Feb; 10(1):2234. PubMed ID: 32042071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Production design and evaluation of a novel breast phantom with various breast glandular fractions.
    Fujisaki T; Kimura M; Saitoh H; Abe S; Hiraoka T
    Radiat Med; 2006 Dec; 24(10):647-52. PubMed ID: 17186318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for flat-panel CT breast imaging.
    Thacker SC; Glick SJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(24):5433-44. PubMed ID: 15724534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Conformance of mean glandular dose from phantom and patient data in mammography.
    Kelaranta A; Toroi P; Timonen M; Komssi S; Kortesniemi M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Apr; 164(3):342-53. PubMed ID: 25114321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [Average glandular tissue dose and image quality in screen-film mammography].
    Kohama C; Yoshida A; Kodera Y
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Sep; 60(9):1332-9. PubMed ID: 15459570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Breast dosimetry.
    Dance DR; Skinner CL; Carlsson GA
    Appl Radiat Isot; 1999 Jan; 50(1):185-203. PubMed ID: 10028637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. Evaluation of exposure in mammography: limitations of average glandular dose and proposal of a new quantity.
    Geeraert N; Klausz R; Muller S; Bloch I; Bosmans H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):342-5. PubMed ID: 25897143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Comparison between effective doses for voxel-based and stylized exposure models from photon and electron irradiation.
    Kramer R; Khoury HJ; Vieira JW
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Nov; 50(21):5105-26. PubMed ID: 16237244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.