192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25652475)
1. Solid-state dosimeters: a new approach for mammography measurements.
Brateman LF; Heintz PH
Med Phys; 2015 Feb; 42(2):542-57. PubMed ID: 25652475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. X-ray spectroscopy applied to radiation shielding calculation in mammography.
Künzel R; Levenhagen RS; Herdade SB; Terini RA; Costa PR
Med Phys; 2008 Aug; 35(8):3539-45. PubMed ID: 18777914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. The effect of a compression paddle on energy response, calibration and measurement with mammographic dosimeters using ionization chambers and solid-state detectors.
Hourdakis CJ; Boziari A; Koumbouli E
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Feb; 54(4):1047-59. PubMed ID: 19168939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Automatic technique parameter selection on a digital mammography system: an evaluation of SNR and CNR as a function of AGD on a GE senographe DS.
Thomson FJ
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2006 Sep; 29(3):251-6. PubMed ID: 17058586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Investigation of single-shot beam quality measurements using state of the art solid-state dosimeters for routine quality assurance applications in mammography.
Bemelmans F; Marshall NW; Dedulle A; Tri Wigati K; Ivanovic S; Binst J; Struelens L; De Hauwere A; Devillers M; Bosmans H
Phys Med; 2021 Aug; 88():242-249. PubMed ID: 34311162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Characterization of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor dosimeters for application in clinical mammography.
Benevides LA; Hintenlang DE
Med Phys; 2006 Feb; 33(2):514-20. PubMed ID: 16532959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Performance of semiconductor dosimeters with a range of radiation qualities used for mammography: A calibration laboratory study.
Salomon E; Homolka P; Csete I; Toroi P
Med Phys; 2020 Mar; 47(3):1372-1378. PubMed ID: 31889315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of patient dose during a digital breast tomosynthesis.
Shakya S; Sulwathura U; Wickramanayake M; Dulshara T; Herath LHMIM; Wickramasinghe WMIS; Senanayake G
Radiography (Lond); 2023 May; 29(3):573-576. PubMed ID: 36996507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Measurement of Average Glandular Dose Using Multiparameter X-ray Measuring Instrument].
Kobayashi T; Koyama T; Terada M; Negishi T
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2023 Nov; 79(11):1266-1273. PubMed ID: 37778978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Precision of half-value layer measurement on mammography].
Ishii R; Yoshida A; Ishii M; Fujimoto S; Henmi N
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2011; 67(12):1533-9. PubMed ID: 22186198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Forward-scattered radiation from the compression paddle should be considered in glandular dose estimations.
Hemdal B
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):196-201. PubMed ID: 21778158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
