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 *

474 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26936697)

  • 21. Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems.
    Marshall NW; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(22):7629-50. PubMed ID: 23123601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Scatter radiation in mammography.
    Simeoni RJ; Thiele DL
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1993 Mar; 16(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 8470995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Scatter radiation intensities about mammography units.
    Simpkin DJ
    Health Phys; 1996 Feb; 70(2):238-44. PubMed ID: 8567292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Algorithmic scatter correction in dual-energy digital mammography.
    Chen X; Nishikawa RM; Chan ST; Lau BA; Zhang L; Mou X
    Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):111919. PubMed ID: 24320452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. X-ray scatter correction in breast tomosynthesis with a precomputed scatter map library.
    Feng SS; D'Orsi CJ; Newell MS; Seidel RL; Patel B; Sechopoulos I
    Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 41(3):031912. PubMed ID: 24593730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of the CT scatter fractions provided in NCRP Report No. 147 to scanner-specific scatter fractions and the consequences for calculated barrier thickness.
    Larson SC; Goodsitt MM; Christodoulou EG; Larson LS
    Health Phys; 2007 Aug; 93(2):165-70. PubMed ID: 17622822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Amorphous In-Ga-Zn-O thin-film transistor active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Zhao C; Kanicki J
    Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091902. PubMed ID: 25186389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
    Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
    Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Design and characterization of a spatially distributed multibeam field emission x-ray source for stationary digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Qian X; Rajaram R; Calderon-Colon X; Yang G; Phan T; Lalush DS; Lu J; Zhou O
    Med Phys; 2009 Oct; 36(10):4389-99. PubMed ID: 19928069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views.
    Chan HP; Goodsitt MM; Helvie MA; Zelakiewicz S; Schmitz A; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA; Nees AV; Neal CH; Carson P; Lu Y; Hadjiiski L; Wei J
    Radiology; 2014 Dec; 273(3):675-85. PubMed ID: 25007048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Determination of backscatter factors in breast tomosynthesis using MCNPX simulations and measurements.
    Baptista M; Di Maria S; Figueira C; Orvalho L; Vaz P
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):325-30. PubMed ID: 25836681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The effect of scatter and glare on image quality in contrast-enhanced breast imaging using an a-Si/CsI(TI) full-field flat panel detector.
    Carton AK; Acciavatti R; Kuo J; Maidment AD
    Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):920-8. PubMed ID: 19378752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Estimation of scattered radiation in digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Diaz O; Dance DR; Young KC; Elangovan P; Bakic PR; Wells K
    Phys Med Biol; 2014 Aug; 59(15):4375-90. PubMed ID: 25049201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Threshold in breast compression reduction for full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Afandy AN; Tori MB; Bintalib SO; Soh BLP
    Radiography (Lond); 2024 Jan; 30(1):217-225. PubMed ID: 38035436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Second generation stationary digital breast tomosynthesis system with faster scan time and wider angular span.
    Calliste J; Wu G; Laganis PE; Spronk D; Jafari H; Olson K; Gao B; Lee YZ; Zhou O; Lu J
    Med Phys; 2017 Sep; 44(9):4482-4495. PubMed ID: 28569999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. In-plane image quality and NPWE detectability index in digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Monnin P; Verdun FR; Bosmans H; Marshall NW
    Phys Med Biol; 2020 May; 65(9):095013. PubMed ID: 32191923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.