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.
85 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 644080)
1. Optimization of electrostatic imaging systems for minimum patient dose or minimum exposure in mammography. Muntz EP; Welkowsky M; Kaegi E; Morsell L; Wilkinson E; Jacobson G Radiology; 1978 May; 127(2):517-23. PubMed ID: 644080 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [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]
3. Theoretical optimization of dual-energy x-ray imaging with application to mammography. Johns PC; Yaffe MJ Med Phys; 1985; 12(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 4010633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimal photon energies with respect to absorbed dose for visualization of soft tissue masses with adipose tissue. Ragozzino MW Med Phys; 1982; 9(4):493-6. PubMed ID: 7110079 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A study of mammographic exposure and detail visibility using three systems: Xerox 125, Min-R, and Xonics XERG. Stanton L; Villafana T; Day JL; Lightfoot DA; Stanton RE Radiology; 1979 Aug; 132(2):455-62. PubMed ID: 461808 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [The Dosage and Quality of Imaging program and quality assurance in mammography]. Rimondi O; Gambaccini M; Marziani M; Candini GC; Indovina PL; Toti A; De Guglielmo E; Calicchia A Radiol Med; 1991; 81(1-2):69-72. PubMed ID: 2006340 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimum photon energies for the measurement of bone mineral and fat fractions. Watt DE Br J Radiol; 1975 Apr; 48(568):265-74. PubMed ID: 1131484 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A quantitative evaluation of film and film/screen combinations for mammographic examination. Moores BM; Hufton AP; Wrigley C; Asbury DL; Ramsden JA Br J Radiol; 1979 Aug; 52(620):626-33. PubMed ID: 486892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Recent advances in screen-film mammography. Haus AG Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):913-28. PubMed ID: 3306773 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography]. Säbel M; Aichinger U; Schulz-Wendtland R Rofo; 2001 Feb; 173(2):79-91. PubMed ID: 11253092 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Value of increasing film processing time to reduce radiation dose during mammography. Skubic SE; Yagan R; Oravec D; Shah Z AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Dec; 155(6):1189-93. PubMed ID: 2122664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Technologic improvements in screen-film mammography. Haus AG Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):628-37. PubMed ID: 2406777 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]