BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

468 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25862535)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.
    Tomon JJ; Johnson TE; Swenson KN; Schauer DA
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Method of measuring NEQ as a quality control metric for digital mammography.
    Bloomquist AK; Mainprize JG; Mawdsley GE; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031905. PubMed ID: 24593723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety].
    Schöfer H; Kotsianos D; Wirth S; Britsch S; Reiser M
    Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography.
    Pachoud M; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Dec; 49(23):5267-81. PubMed ID: 15656276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
    Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.