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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35988481)

  • 1. Optimization of the exposure parameters in digital mammography for diverse glandularities using the contrast-detail metric.
    Martí Villarreal OA; Velasco FG; Fausto AMF; Milian FM; Mol AW; Capizzi KR; Ambrosio P
    Phys Med; 2022 Sep; 101():112-119. PubMed ID: 35988481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimization of the exposure parameters in digital mammography using contrast-detail metrics.
    Rojas LJ; Fausto AMF; Mol AW; Velasco FG; Abreu POS; Henriques G; Furquim TAC
    Phys Med; 2017 Oct; 42():13-18. PubMed ID: 29173906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography.
    Fausto AM; Lopes MC; de Sousa MC; Furquim TA; Mol AW; Velasco FG
    J Digit Imaging; 2017 Apr; 30(2):185-196. PubMed ID: 27896452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Optimization of exposure parameters in full field digital mammography.
    Williams MB; Raghunathan P; More MJ; Seibert JA; Kwan A; Lo JY; Samei E; Ranger NT; Fajardo LL; McGruder A; McGruder SM; Maidment AD; Yaffe MJ; Bloomquist A; Mawdsley GE
    Med Phys; 2008 Jun; 35(6):2414-23. PubMed ID: 18649474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Tailoring automatic exposure control toward constant detectability in digital mammography.
    Salvagnini E; Bosmans H; Struelens L; Marshall NW
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3834-47. PubMed ID: 26133585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A critical comparison of three full field digital mammography systems using figure of merit.
    Kanaga KC; Yap HH; Laila SE; Sulaiman T; Zaharah M; Shantini AA
    Med J Malaysia; 2010 Jun; 65(2):119-22. PubMed ID: 23756795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Using aluminum for scatter control in mammography: preliminary work using measurements of CNR and FOM.
    Al Khalifah K; Davidson R; Zhou A
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2020 Mar; 13(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 31749130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Radiation doses in cone-beam breast computed tomography: a Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Yi Y; Lai CJ; Han T; Zhong Y; Shen Y; Liu X; Ge S; You Z; Wang T; Shaw CC
    Med Phys; 2011 Feb; 38(2):589-97. PubMed ID: 21452696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. COMPARISON OF SPECTRA AND MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE WITH TUBE VOLTAGES USED IN DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS FROM SIMULATED, METROLOGICAL AND CLINICAL CASES.
    da Silveira Gatto LB; Braz D; Pacifico L; Travassos P; Magalhaes LAG
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Dec; 192(3):402-412. PubMed ID: 33320943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
    Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
    Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Monte Carlo simulation for the estimation of the glandular breast dose for a digital breast tomosynthesis system.
    Rodrigues L; Magalhaes LA; Braz D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Dec; 167(4):576-83. PubMed ID: 25480841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.
    Feng SS; Sechopoulos I
    Radiology; 2012 Apr; 263(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22332070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Derivation of Conversion Formula of Image Quality Figure (IQF
    Nagami A; Ishii R; Kitagawa K; Ishii M; Terazono S; Sanada T; Yoshida A
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2023 Feb; 79(2):121-127. PubMed ID: 36642510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optimization of x-ray spectra in digital mammography through Monte Carlo simulations.
    Cunha DM; Tomal A; Poletti ME
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1919-35. PubMed ID: 22421418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Glandular dose indices using a glandular dose to air kerma volume histogram in mammography.
    Shinohara S; Araki F; Ohno T
    Med Phys; 2020 Mar; 47(3):1340-1348. PubMed ID: 31859402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
    Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.