BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

566 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24613514)

  • 1. Optimal photon energy comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography: a case study.
    Di Maria S; Baptista M; Felix M; Oliveira N; Matela N; Janeiro L; Vaz P; Orvalho L; Silva A
    Phys Med; 2014 Jun; 30(4):482-8. PubMed ID: 24613514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
    Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of the glandular composition on digital breast tomosynthesis image quality and dose optimisation.
    Marques T; Ribeiro A; Di Maria S; Belchior A; Cardoso J; Matela N; Oliveira N; Janeiro L; Almeida P; Vaz P
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):337-41. PubMed ID: 25836692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.
    Shrestha S; Vedantham S; Karellas A
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Mar; 62(5):1969-1993. PubMed ID: 28075335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
    Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
    Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Monte Carlo simulation for the estimation of the glandular breast dose for a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
    Rodrigues L; Magalhaes LA; Braz D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Dec; 167(4):576-83. PubMed ID: 25480841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of amorphous selenium detector thickness on dual-energy digital breast imaging.
    Hu YH; Zhao W
    Med Phys; 2014 Nov; 41(11):111904. PubMed ID: 25370637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM.
    Gennaro G; Del Genio S; Manco G; Caumo F
    Eur Radiol Exp; 2024 Apr; 8(1):49. PubMed ID: 38622388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cancer risk estimation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis using GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations and voxel phantoms.
    Ferreira P; Baptista M; Di Maria S; Vaz P
    Phys Med; 2016 May; 32(5):717-23. PubMed ID: 27133140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quantitative image quality measurements of a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
    Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
    Rofo; 2013 Dec; 185(12):1188-94. PubMed ID: 23888475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Optimization of a dual-energy contrast-enhanced technique for a photon-counting digital breast tomosynthesis system: I. A theoretical model.
    Carton AK; Ullberg C; Lindman K; Acciavatti R; Francke T; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2010 Nov; 37(11):5896-907. PubMed ID: 21158302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system.
    Marshall NW; Lemmens K; Bosmans H
    Med Phys; 2012 Feb; 39(2):811-24. PubMed ID: 22320791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Case for Wide-Angle Breast Tomosynthesis.
    Samei E; Thompson J; Richard S; Bowsher J
    Acad Radiol; 2015 Jul; 22(7):860-9. PubMed ID: 25920335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Total variation minimization filter for DBT imaging.
    Mota AM; Matela N; Oliveira N; Almeida P
    Med Phys; 2015 Jun; 42(6):2827-36. PubMed ID: 26127035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.
    Feng SS; Sechopoulos I
    Radiology; 2012 Apr; 263(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22332070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Cockmartin L; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 29.