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 *

97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7162476)

  • 1. Performance of automatic exposure controls in mammography.
    Karila KT
    Med Phys; 1982; 9(6):898-903. PubMed ID: 7162476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography.
    McParland BJ
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1068-77. PubMed ID: 11271899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accurate automatic exposure controller for mammography: design and performance.
    Frederick EE; Squillante MR; Cirignano LJ; Hahn RW; Entine G
    Radiology; 1991 Feb; 178(2):393-6. PubMed ID: 1987599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Film-screen mammography x-ray tube anodes: molybdenum versus tungsten.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Rothschild P
    Med Phys; 1989; 16(2):279-83. PubMed ID: 2716707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of radiation dose, focal spot, and automatic exposure of newer film-screen mammography units.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Nov; 149(5):913-7. PubMed ID: 3499794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Procedure for quantitatively assessing automatic exposure control in mammography: a study of the GE Senographe 600 TS.
    Meeson S; Young KC; Hollaway PB; Wallis MG
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):615-20. PubMed ID: 11509397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A phantom-based evaluation of an exposure equalization technique in mammography.
    Skiadopoulos S; Pierrakeas C; Costaridou L; Kalogeropoulou CP; Panayiotakis G
    Br J Radiol; 1999 Oct; 72(862):977-85. PubMed ID: 10673949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Performance evaluation of phototimers.
    Chaney EL; Hendee WR; Hare DL
    Radiology; 1976 Mar; 118(3):715-7. PubMed ID: 1251026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems.
    Cooper VN; Oshiro T; Cagnon CH; Bassett LW; McLeod-Stockmann TM; Bezrukiy NV
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2614-21. PubMed ID: 14596297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. [Optical density of phantom images of different mammography equipment using various exposure conditions].
    Blendl C
    Radiologe; 2002 Apr; 42(4):291-8. PubMed ID: 12063737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammography equipment: principles, features, selection.
    Feig SA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):897-911. PubMed ID: 3306772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Performance of mammography equipment in the Macedonian breast screening campaign 2008/2009.
    Gershan V; Antevska-Grujoska S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):187-91. PubMed ID: 21733866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the spectral response of the Wisconsin Mammographic kVp Cassettes.
    Cruty MR; Ghilardi-Netto T
    Med Phys; 1980; 7(2):151-6. PubMed ID: 7382918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using light sensitometry to evaluate mammography film performance.
    West MS; Spelic DC
    Med Phys; 2000 May; 27(5):854-60. PubMed ID: 10841387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Practical application of a scan-rotate equalization geometry to mammography.
    Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB
    Med Phys; 1996 Dec; 23(12):1987-96. PubMed ID: 8994163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of mammographic screen-film systems.
    Arnold BA; Webster EW; Kalisher L
    Radiology; 1978 Oct; 129(1):179-85. PubMed ID: 693873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.