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 *

76 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3712313)

  • 1. [Large breasts, small breasts; which mammographic technic?].
    Hessler C; Depeursinge C; Grecescu M; Raimondi S; Valley JF
    J Radiol; 1986 Feb; 67(2):149-53. PubMed ID: 3712313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic X-ray system.
    Young KC; Ramsdale ML; Rust A; Cooke J
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Oct; 70(838):1036-42. PubMed ID: 9404208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
    Zdesar U
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Method for determination of the mean fraction of glandular tissue in individual female breasts using mammography.
    Jansen JT; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; van Woudenberg S; Zoetelief J
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(24):5953-67. PubMed ID: 16333166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Mammography -a guidance level and the present situation of mammographic dose-].
    Terada H
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(2):65-73. PubMed ID: 12766282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography.
    McParland BJ; Boyd MM
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Jun; 73(870):613-26. PubMed ID: 10911785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
    Klausz R; Shramchenko N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimal beam quality selection in digital mammography.
    Young KC; Oduko JM; Bosmans H; Nijs K; Martinez L
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79(948):981-90. PubMed ID: 17213303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Female breast radiation exposure during thorax multidetector computed tomography and the effectiveness of bismuth breast shield to reduce breast radiation dose.
    Yilmaz MH; Albayram S; Yaşar D; Ozer H; Adaletli I; Selçuk D; Akman C; Altuğ A
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2007; 31(1):138-42. PubMed ID: 17259846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography.
    Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Yaffe M; Alm Carlsson G
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jul; 50(13):3143-52. PubMed ID: 15972986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms.
    Dance DR; Hunt RA; Bakic PR; Maidment AD; Sandborg M; Ullman G; Alm Carlsson G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):359-63. PubMed ID: 15933137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Glandularity and mean glandular dose determined for individual women at four regional breast cancer screening units in the Netherlands.
    Zoetelief J; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Jansen JT
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(7):1807-17. PubMed ID: 16552106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Improved image quality for dense breasts in mammography.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Jan; 65(769):50-5. PubMed ID: 1486368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Average glandular dose conversion coefficients for segmented breast voxel models.
    Zankl M; Fill U; Hoeschen C; Panzer W; Regulla D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):410-4. PubMed ID: 15933148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Mammography using stationary grids. Qualitative and dosimetric considerations].
    Burke P; Fasciano F; Frigerio A; Spandonari T; Temporelli A
    Radiol Med; 1986 Sep; 72(9):660-3. PubMed ID: 3763970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Investigation of breast dose in five screening mammography centres in Greece.
    Tsapaki V; Tsalafoutas IA; Poga V; Louizi A; Kottou S; Koulentianos E
    J Radiol Prot; 2008 Sep; 28(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 18714130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.