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 *

59 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4001409)

  • 21. Digital mammography: quality and dose control.
    Di Maggio C; Gambaccini M; Gennaro G; Baldelli P; Taibi A; Chersevani R; Aimonetto S; Rossetti V; Origgi D; Vigorito S; Contento G; Angelini L; Maggi S
    Radiol Med; 2004; 107(5-6):459-73. PubMed ID: 15195008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part I. Technical characterization of the systems.
    Marshall NW; Monnin P; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4201-20. PubMed ID: 21701051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Quality assurance in screening mammography.
    Health Devices; 1990; 19(5-6):152-98. PubMed ID: 2372321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography].
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2000 Nov; 172(11):940-5. PubMed ID: 11142129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit.
    Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Confrontation of mammography systems in flanders with the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in mammography screening. Analysis of initial results.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Deprez T; Rogge F; Van Steen A; Van Limbergen E; Marchal G
    JBR-BTR; 1999 Dec; 82(6):288-93. PubMed ID: 10670170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
    Alvarez M; Pina DR; Miranda JR; Duarte SB
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. [Quality control of mammography: potential use of a new device for testing the image quality and the dose].
    Di Maggio C; Gennaro G; Gambaccini M; Cattozzo S
    Radiol Med; 1996 Sep; 92(3):261-6. PubMed ID: 8975313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
    Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. [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]  

  • 33. The XERG-mammography system: a solution to the dose-quality problem?
    Friedrich M
    Eur J Radiol; 1981 May; 1(2):143-51. PubMed ID: 7338239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Quality control in mammography.
    Hendrick RE; Botsco M; Plott CM
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1041-57. PubMed ID: 7480654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Breast radiography: phantom, equipment performance, and radiation dosage comparisons for twenty-eight major mammography centers in the midwest. Work in progress.
    Gannon FE; Fields T; Griffith CR; Hubbard LB; Broadbent MV; Stanton L
    Radiology; 1983 Nov; 149(2):579-82. PubMed ID: 6622706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. An alternative method for noise analysis using pixel variance as part of quality control procedures on digital mammography systems.
    Bouwman R; Young K; Lazzari B; Ravaglia V; Broeders M; van Engen R
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Nov; 54(22):6809-22. PubMed ID: 19847017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. [Slit-aperture technic in mammography].
    Friedrich M
    Rofo; 1984 Nov; 141(5):574-82. PubMed ID: 6438724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Dosage loads and quality of the image in mammography].
    Kozlov AP; Shishov VA; Telesh LV; Fedorov IuA
    Vestn Rentgenol Radiol; 1986; (3):74-9. PubMed ID: 3750831
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.