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: 2921988)

  • 1. Radiation probe for indirect evaluation of the high-voltage waveform of a Mo anode mammography unit.
    Gambaccini M; Marziani M; Rimondi O; Indovina PL
    Med Phys; 1989; 16(1):94-7. PubMed ID: 2921988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Film-screen mammography x-ray tube anodes: molybdenum versus tungsten.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Rothschild P
    Med Phys; 1989; 16(2):279-83. PubMed ID: 2716707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
    Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
    Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
    Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Optimization of radiation dose and image quality in mammography: a clinical evaluation of rhodium versus molybdenum.
    Monticciolo DL; Sprawls P; Kruse BD; Peterson JE
    South Med J; 1996 Apr; 89(4):391-4. PubMed ID: 8614878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mammograms obtained with rhodium vs molybdenum anodes: contrast and dose differences.
    Kimme-Smith C; Wang J; DeBruhl N; Basic M; Bassett LW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jun; 162(6):1313-7. PubMed ID: 8191989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Voltage waveform effects on output and penetration of W- and Mo-anode mammographic tubes.
    O'Foghludha F; Johnson GA
    Phys Med Biol; 1981 Mar; 26(2):291-303. PubMed ID: 7220605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Studies on image quality in mammography using a tungsten anode tube in conjunction with edge filters].
    Minski M; Säbel M; Aichinger H; Joite-Barfuss S
    Rofo; 1988 Apr; 148(4):437-43. PubMed ID: 2834793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A survey of radiation dose and image quality in mammography: an ongoing program in Italy.
    Rimondi O; Gambaccini M; Candini GC; Indovina PL; Rosati A
    Health Phys; 1987 Apr; 52(4):437-41. PubMed ID: 3570786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Short communication: kilovoltage measurement with rhodium target and filters on mammography X-ray machines.
    Underwood AC; Law J; Goodman DA; Robinson A; Rust A
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Aug; 69(824):769-73. PubMed ID: 8949681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Dance DR; Thilander AK; Sandborg M; Skinner CL; Castellano IA; Carlsson GA
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Optimal x-ray spectra for screen-film mammography.
    Jennings RJ; Eastgate RJ; Siedband MP; Ergun DL
    Med Phys; 1981; 8(5):629-39. PubMed ID: 7290015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammography equipment: principles, features, selection.
    Feig SA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):897-911. PubMed ID: 3306772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Tungsten anode tubes with K-edge filters for mammography.
    Beaman S; Lillicrap SC; Price JL
    Br J Radiol; 1983 Oct; 56(670):721-7. PubMed ID: 6616137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [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]  

  • 19. A fast non-invasive beam check for mammography x-ray units.
    Gambaccini M; Marziani M; Rimondi O
    Phys Med Biol; 1994 Sep; 39(9):1423-35. PubMed ID: 15552114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Suitability of new anode materials in mammography: dose and subject contrast considerations using Monte Carlo simulation.
    Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4221-35. PubMed ID: 17153401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.