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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26739577)

  • 1. Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.
    Ma WK; McEntee MF; Mercer C; Kelly J; Millington S; Hogg P
    Br J Radiol; 2016; 89(1059):20150715. PubMed ID: 26739577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Extra patient movement during mammographic imaging: an experimental study.
    Ma WK; Brettle D; Howard D; Kelly J; Millington S; Hogg P
    Br J Radiol; 2014 Dec; 87(1044):20140241. PubMed ID: 25348098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The readout thickness versus the measured thickness for a range of screen film mammography and full-field digital mammography units.
    Hauge IH; Hogg P; Szczepura K; Connolly P; McGill G; Mercer C
    Med Phys; 2012 Jan; 39(1):263-71. PubMed ID: 22225296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Closed-loop control of compression paddle motion to reduce blurring in mammograms.
    Ma WK; Howard D; Hogg P
    Med Phys; 2017 Aug; 44(8):4139-4147. PubMed ID: 28494106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Breast compression and experienced pain during mammography by use of three different compression paddles.
    Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Evensen KT; Hantho C; Iden KA; Hofvind S
    Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jun; 115():59-65. PubMed ID: 31084760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A method to measure paddle and detector pressures and footprints in mammography.
    Hogg P; Szczepura K; Darlington A; Maxwell A
    Med Phys; 2013 Apr; 40(4):041907. PubMed ID: 23556901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effect of compression paddle tilt correction on volumetric breast density estimation.
    Kallenberg MG; van Gils CH; Lokate M; den Heeten GJ; Karssemeijer N
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Aug; 57(16):5155-68. PubMed ID: 22842727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Experience of pain during mammographic screening by three different compression paddles.
    Moshina N; Sagstad S; Holen ÅS; Backmann HA; Westermann LC; Hofvind S
    Radiography (Lond); 2023 Aug; 29(5):903-910. PubMed ID: 37453253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of pressure-controlled mammography compression paddles with respect to force-controlled compression paddles in clinical practice.
    Jeukens CRLPN; van Dijk T; Berben C; Wildberger JE; Lobbes MBI
    Eur Radiol; 2019 May; 29(5):2545-2552. PubMed ID: 30617472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Technical Note: Validation of two methods to determine contact area between breast and compression paddle in mammography.
    Branderhorst W; de Groot JE; van Lier MGJTB; Highnam RP; den Heeten GJ; Grimbergen CA
    Med Phys; 2017 Aug; 44(8):4040-4044. PubMed ID: 28569996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A quantitative metrology for performance characterization of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on an anthropomorphic phantom.
    Ikejimba L; Lo JY; Chen Y; Oberhofer N; Kiarashi N; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1627. PubMed ID: 27036562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Force balancing in mammographic compression.
    Branderhorst W; de Groot JE; Neeter LM; van Lier MG; Neeleman C; den Heeten GJ; Grimbergen CA
    Med Phys; 2016 Jan; 43(1):518. PubMed ID: 26745945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Aspects of forward scattering from the compression paddle in the dosimetry of mammography.
    Toroi P; Könönen N; Timonen M; Kortesniemi M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 May; 154(4):439-45. PubMed ID: 23034732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?
    Nelson JS; Wells JR; Baker JA; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2016 May; 43(5):2538. PubMed ID: 27147364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of motion velocity on four-dimensional target volumes: a phantom study.
    Nakamura M; Narita Y; Sawada A; Matsugi K; Nakata M; Matsuo Y; Mizowaki T; Hiraoka M
    Med Phys; 2009 May; 36(5):1610-7. PubMed ID: 19544777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
    Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
    Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.