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 *

268 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29514152)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography.
    Smathers RL; Boone JM; Lee LJ; Berns EA; Miller RA; Wright AM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 May; 188(5):1414-21. PubMed ID: 17449790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. INSTITUTIONAL BREAST DOSES IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
    Lekatou A; Metaxas V; Messaris G; Antzele P; Tzavellas G; Panayiotakis G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):239-251. PubMed ID: 30753684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: II. Artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry.
    Marshall NW; Cockmartin L; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2023 Oct; 68(21):. PubMed ID: 37820686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Deep learning denoising of digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study of the effect on detection of microcalcifications in breast phantom images.
    Chan HP; Helvie MA; Gao M; Hadjiiski L; Zhou C; Garver K; Klein KA; McLaughlin C; Oudsema R; Rahman WT; Roubidoux MA
    Med Phys; 2023 Oct; 50(10):6177-6189. PubMed ID: 37145996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography.
    McParland BJ
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1068-77. PubMed ID: 11271899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [Radiation dose evaluation in a photon-counting digital mammography unit].
    Matsubara K; Matsumoto C; Mochiya Y; Toda K; Noto K; Koshida K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2014 May; 70(5):445-52. PubMed ID: 24858289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. [Digital magnification mammography. A new technique for improved visualization of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis].
    Reuther G; Hoffmann R; Bier B
    Radiologe; 1993 May; 33(5):260-6. PubMed ID: 8516436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Effect of dose reduction on the ability of digital mammography to detect simulated microcalcifications.
    Yakabe M; Sakai S; Yabuuchi H; Matsuo Y; Kamitani T; Setoguchi T; Cho M; Masuda M; Sasaki M
    J Digit Imaging; 2010 Oct; 23(5):520-6. PubMed ID: 19415382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Quantitative evaluation of dual-energy digital mammography for calcification imaging.
    Kappadath SC; Shaw CC
    Phys Med Biol; 2004 Jun; 49(12):2563-76. PubMed ID: 15272674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques.
    Kheddache S; Thilander-Klang A; Lanhede B; Månsson LG; Bjurstam N; Ackerholm P; Björneld L
    Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(4):591-7. PubMed ID: 10354868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Comparing image quality of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on radiologists' reviews of phantom data.
    Sundell VM; Jousi M; Mäkelä T; Kaasalainen T; Hukkinen K
    Acta Radiol; 2023 May; 64(5):1799-1807. PubMed ID: 36437753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Funke M; Grabbe EH
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Effects of exposure equalization on image signal-to-noise ratios in digital mammography: a simulation study with an anthropomorphic breast phantom.
    Liu X; Lai CJ; Whitman GJ; Geiser WR; Shen Y; Yi Y; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Dec; 38(12):6489-501. PubMed ID: 22149832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Mammographic Phantoms Frequently Used to Determine Image Quality: A Comparative Study.
    AlKhalifah K; Brindabhan A
    J Allied Health; 2017; 46(4):239-242. PubMed ID: 29202159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of mean glandular dose and modulation transfer function for different tube potentials and target-filter combinations in computed radiography mammography.
    Abdul Aziz SA; Mohd Saparudin AK; Harun AZ
    Malays J Med Sci; 2013 May; 20(3):23-30. PubMed ID: 23966821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.