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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26975874)

  • 1. Survey of patient exposure from general radiography and mammography in Japan in 2014.
    Asada Y; Suzuki S; Minami K; Shirakawa S; Kobayashi M
    J Radiol Prot; 2016 Jun; 36(2):N8-N18. PubMed ID: 26975874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. PATIENT EXPOSURE DURING PLAIN RADIOGRAPHY AND MAMMOGRAPHY IN JAPAN IN 1974-2014.
    Matsunaga Y; Kawaguchi A; Kobayashi K; Kobayashi M; Asada Y; Minami K; Suzuki S; Chida K
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2017 Nov; 176(4):347-353. PubMed ID: 28338846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Proposed diagnostic reference levels for general radiography and mammography in Japan.
    Asada Y; Kondo Y; Kobayashi M; Kobayashi K; Ichikawa T; Matsunaga Y
    J Radiol Prot; 2020 Sep; 40(3):867-876. PubMed ID: 32590370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [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]  

  • 6. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - Clinical results.
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Marten K; Kehbel S; Fischer U; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2002 Jun; 174(6):696-9. PubMed ID: 12063597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Investigation of quality control and average glandular dose and image quality in digital mammography in Hokkaido].
    Kurowarabi K; Abe H; Horita H; Kaneta K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2011; 67(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 21532248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Report based on fiscal 2010 diagnostic X-ray equipment questionnaire survey (conditions of radiography)].
    Koyano Y; Ide T; Tsukamoto A; Ochiai K; Miyake H; Okuyama T; Miyazaki S
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2015 Apr; 71(4):348-55. PubMed ID: 25892422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Propose for the Benchmark Dose (BD) for the Optimization of Protection in Medical Exposure in General Radiography].
    Watanabe H; Seki M; Nitta M; Serita I; Maehara Y; Okura H; Murakami T; Yamamoto K; Sato T; Tajima R
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2018; 74(5):443-451. PubMed ID: 29780043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Mismatch in breast and detector size during screening and diagnostic mammography results in increased patient radiation dose.
    Wells CL; Slanetz PJ; Rosen MP
    Acad Radiol; 2014 Jan; 21(1):99-103. PubMed ID: 24331271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Low dose high energy x-ray in-line phase sensitive imaging prototype: Investigation of optimal geometric conditions and design parameters.
    Ghani MU; Yan A; Wong MD; Li Y; Ren L; Wu X; Liu H
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(6):667-82. PubMed ID: 26756405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [CR (Computed Radiography)].
    Matsumoto M
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(2):110-7. PubMed ID: 12766288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Relationship between detector size and the need for extra images and their effect on radiation exposure in digital mammography screening.
    Entz K; Sommer A; Heindel W; Lenzen H
    Rofo; 2014 Sep; 186(9):868-75. PubMed ID: 24563411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
    Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
    Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Report based on fiscal 2005 diagnostic X-ray equipment questionnaire survey-conditions of radiography-].
    Nishio Y; Matsuura T; Miyake H; Asano H; Imai Y; Tsukamoto A; Ide T; Shinohara F; Miyazaki S
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2009 Mar; 65(3):332-9. PubMed ID: 19367067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Overview of patient dosimetry in diagnostic radiology in the USA for the past 50 years.
    Huda W; Nickoloff EL; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5713-28. PubMed ID: 19175129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey of abdomen and lumbosacral spine radiography.
    Spelic DC; Kaczmarek RV; Suleiman OH
    Radiology; 2004 Jul; 232(1):115-25. PubMed ID: 15220497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.