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.
6. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control. Friedrich MA Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Routine quality control tests for film-screen mammographic systems with automatic exposure control. Geise RA; Morin RL; Wasserman NF Med Phys; 1988; 15(6):904-8. PubMed ID: 3237149 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The quality mammographic image. A review of its components. Rickard MT Australas Radiol; 1989 Nov; 33(4):328-34. PubMed ID: 2633732 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Characterization of the reciprocity law failure in three mammography screen-film systems. de Almeida A; Sobol WT; Barnes GT Med Phys; 1999 May; 26(5):682-8. PubMed ID: 10360527 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents. Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of dual-energy subtraction of digital mammography images under conditions found in a commercial unit. Brandan ME; RamÃrez-R V Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(9):2307-20. PubMed ID: 16625044 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quantitative contrast-enhanced mammography for contrast medium kinetics studies. Arvanitis CD; Speller R Phys Med Biol; 2009 Oct; 54(20):6041-64. PubMed ID: 19779213 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of radiation dose, focal spot, and automatic exposure of newer film-screen mammography units. Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Nov; 149(5):913-7. PubMed ID: 3499794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Increased radiation dose at mammography due to prolonged exposure, delayed processing, and increased film darkening. Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Chow S Radiology; 1991 Feb; 178(2):387-91. PubMed ID: 1987598 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Performance of automatic exposure controls when used with rare-earth intensifying screens. Olson A; High M Radiology; 1981 Aug; 140(2):491-8. PubMed ID: 7255727 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum. Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Magnification mammography: evaluation of screen-film and xeroradiographic techniques. Haus AG; Paulus DD; Dodd GD; Cowart RW; Bencomo J Radiology; 1979 Oct; 133(1):223-6. PubMed ID: 472295 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]