177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24234736)
1. Patient investigation of average glandular dose and incident air kerma for digital mammography.
Kawaguchi A; Matsunaga Y; Otsuka T; Suzuki S
Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):102-8. PubMed ID: 24234736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Dose assessment in contrast enhanced digital mammography using simple phantoms simulating standard model breasts.
Bouwman RW; van Engen RE; Young KC; Veldkamp WJ; Dance DR
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Jan; 60(1):N1-7. PubMed ID: 25500435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data.
Bouwman RW; van Engen RE; Young KC; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ; Schopphoven S; Jeukens CR; Veldkamp WJ; Dance DR
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Oct; 60(20):7893-907. PubMed ID: 26407015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Evaluation of the Accuracy of the Displayed Average Glandular Dose in Mammography].
Kitano M; Tokorodani R; Yamada Y; Muto H
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2022 Nov; 78(11):1333-1340. PubMed ID: 36104224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. EVALUATION OF RADIATION DOSE FOR PATIENTS UNDERGOING MAMMOGRAPHY IN QATAR.
AlNaemi H; Aly A; J Omar A; AlObadli A; Ciraj-Bjelac O; Kharita MH; Rehani MM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Jul; 189(3):354-361. PubMed ID: 32342104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Mean glandular dose in six digital mammography services in Santiago, Chile: preliminary reference levels.
Leyton F; Nogueira Mdo S; Dantas M; Duran MP; Ubeda C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):115-20. PubMed ID: 25833896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mammography dosimetry using an in-house developed polymethyl methacrylate phantom.
Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS; Chourasiya G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(2):379-85. PubMed ID: 22232773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.
Meyblum E; Gardavaud F; Dao TH; Fournier V; Beaussart P; Pigneur F; Baranes L; Rahmouni A; Luciani A
Diagn Interv Imaging; 2015 Sep; 96(9):931-9. PubMed ID: 25908324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammography Dose Survey Using International Quality Standards.
Boujemaa S; Bosmans H; Bentayeb F
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Dec; 50(4):529-535. PubMed ID: 31420271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).
Bicchierai G; Busoni S; Tortoli P; Bettarini S; Naro FD; De Benedetto D; Savi E; Bellini C; Miele V; Nori J
Acad Radiol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):1342-1349. PubMed ID: 35065889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
