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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25833896)

  • 21. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
    Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
    Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. PORTUGUESE STUDY OF MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE IN MAMMOGRAPHY AND COMPARISON WITH EUROPEAN REFERENCES.
    Sá Dos Reis C; Fartaria MJ; Garcia Alves JH; Pascoal A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2018 Jun; 179(4):391-399. PubMed ID: 29342291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
    Zdesar U
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Results of a 2011 national questionnaire for investigation of mean glandular dose from mammography in Japan.
    Asada Y; Suzuki S; Minami K; Shirakawa S
    J Radiol Prot; 2014 Mar; 34(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 24334729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Dosimetric and Contrast Noise Ratio Comparison of Three Different Digital Imaging Technologies in Mammography.
    Prieto D; Chiva M; Martínez AM; Cámara M; Orozco F; Carlos de Andrés J; Bejar MJ; Capuz AB; Colmenares R; Sevillano D; Moris R; García JD; García F
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2020 Mar; 51(1):88-94. PubMed ID: 31987765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Variations in breast doses for an automatic mammography unit.
    Bor D; Tükel S; Olgar T; Aydin E
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2008 Sep; 14(3):122-6. PubMed ID: 18814131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of DR and CR digital mammography systems based on phantom and breast dosimetry.
    Ramos M; Ferrer S; Verdú G; Villaescusa JI; Salas MD
    Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2006; 2006():5659-62. PubMed ID: 17946321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
    Klausz R; Shramchenko N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients.
    Ciraj-Bjelac O; Beciric S; Arandjic D; Kosutic D; Kovacevic M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 20159918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2002 May; 29(5):830-4. PubMed ID: 12033579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Diagnostic reference levels for mammography in BreastScreen Queensland.
    Thiele DL; Irvine M; Want D; Bernardo M
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2011 Sep; 34(3):415-8. PubMed ID: 21626243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.