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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3499794)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Breast radiation dose in film/screen mammography.
    Prado KL; Rakowski JT; Barragan F; Vanek KN
    Health Phys; 1988 Jul; 55(1):81-3. PubMed ID: 3391781
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
    Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [The reduction of radiation burden in mammography using film-screen combination systems].
    Waegner U; Geissler S; Rosenkranz G
    Radiol Diagn (Berl); 1990; 31(5):465-70. PubMed ID: 2277840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
    Bor D; Akdur K
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. [Direct digital magnification mammography with a large-surface detector made of amorphous silicon].
    Hermann KP; Hundertmark C; Funke M; von Brenndorff A; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1999 May; 170(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 10370416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
    Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. [Complex evaluation of film mammographic imaging systems. 2. Comparison of 18 systems using a signal-noise matrix].
    Friedrich M; Weskamp P
    Rofo; 1984 Jun; 140(6):707-16. PubMed ID: 6429790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Average glandular tissue dose and image quality in screen-film mammography].
    Kohama C; Yoshida A; Kodera Y
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Sep; 60(9):1332-9. PubMed ID: 15459570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Performance measurements of mammographic systems.
    Bor D; Akyol O; Olgar T
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):165-9. PubMed ID: 18448439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Focal spot size measurements with pinhole and slit for microfocus mammography units.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH
    Med Phys; 1988; 15(3):298-303. PubMed ID: 3405132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Uncertainties of exposure-related quantities in mammographic x-ray unit quality control.
    Gregory KJ; Pattison JE; Bibbo G
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):687-98. PubMed ID: 16878572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Magnification mammography: a low-dose technique.
    Arnold BA; Eisenberg H; Bjarngard BE
    Radiology; 1979 Jun; 131(3):743-9. PubMed ID: 441382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Mammography in New Zealand: radiation dose and image quality.
    Poletti JL; Williamson BD; Mitchell AW
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Jun; 14(2):97-102. PubMed ID: 1747087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of mammographic screen-film systems.
    Sickles EA
    Recent Results Cancer Res; 1987; 105():52-7. PubMed ID: 3589132
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey.
    Gennaro G; Baldelli P; Taibi A; Di Maggio C; Gambaccini M
    Eur Radiol; 2004 Apr; 14(4):645-52. PubMed ID: 12920561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2002 May; 29(5):830-4. PubMed ID: 12033579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.