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 *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22740646)

  • 1. A comparison of mean glandular dose diagnostic reference levels within the all-digital Irish National Breast Screening Programme and the Irish Symptomatic Breast Services.
    O'Leary D; Rainford L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Mar; 153(3):300-8. PubMed ID: 22740646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comprehensive dose survey of breast screening in Ireland.
    Baldelli P; McCullagh J; Phelan N; Flanagan F
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Apr; 145(1):52-60. PubMed ID: 21097483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium.
    Smans K; Bosmans H; Xiao M; Carton AK; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):321-6. PubMed ID: 16464839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria.
    Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme.
    Hauge IH; Pedersen K; Sanderud A; Hofvind S; Olerud HM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jan; 148(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 21335333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
    Weigel S; Girnus R; Czwoydzinski J; Decker T; Spital S; Heindel W
    Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit.
    Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A survey on performance status of mammography machines: image quality and dosimetry studies using a standard mammography imaging phantom.
    Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jul; 150(3):325-33. PubMed ID: 22090414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
    Sommer A; Schopphoven S; Land I; Blaser D; Sobczak T;
    Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammography equipment performance, image quality and mean glandular dose in Malta.
    Borg M; Badr I; Royle GJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Sep; 156(2):168-83. PubMed ID: 23525916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Objective assessment of image quality in conventional and digital mammography taking into account dynamic range.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):380-2. PubMed ID: 15933141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Vañó E
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):375-9. PubMed ID: 15933140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Experience with the European quality assurance guidelines for digital mammography systems in a national screening programme.
    McCullagh J; Keavey E; Egan G; Phelan N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb; 153(2):223-6. PubMed ID: 23173219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of the population dose to the UK population from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.
    Faulkner K; Wallis MG; Neilson F; Whitaker CJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):184-90. PubMed ID: 18483008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bulgarian experience in the establishment of reference dose levels and implementation of a quality control system in diagnostic radiology.
    Vassileva J; Dimov A; Slavchev A; Karadjov A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):131-4. PubMed ID: 16464832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
    Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.