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 *

86 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7347990)

  • 1. Dose reduction in the low-energy X-ray diagnostics of extremities.
    Zaránd P; Pálvölgyi R; Péntek Z; Polgár I
    Acta Biochim Biophys Acad Sci Hung; 1981; 16(3-4):219-22. PubMed ID: 7347990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Dose efficiency of screen-film systems used in pediatric radiography.
    Cohen G; Wagner LK; McDaniel DL; Robinson LH
    Radiology; 1984 Jul; 152(1):187-93. PubMed ID: 6729110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Uroradiographic dosimetry using a rare-earth screen-film system.
    Segal AJ; Maillie HD; Lemkin JA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1982 Nov; 139(5):923-6. PubMed ID: 6981976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Comparative study of screen-film combinations used in conventional radiography].
    Malchair F; Longtain F; Gordenne W
    J Belge Radiol; 1988; 71(4):451-6. PubMed ID: 3215896
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of x-radiation doses between conventional and rare earth panoramic radiographic techniques.
    Skoczylas LJ; Preece JW; Langlais RP; McDavid WD; Waggener RG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):776-81. PubMed ID: 2594329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reduction of body doses in rotational panoramic radiography by means of reduced beam width in combination with rare earth intensifying screens.
    Aagaard A; Sewerin I
    Scand J Dent Res; 1986 Dec; 94(6):530-5. PubMed ID: 3468601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Determination of absorbed doses of radiation during lateral cephalometric radiography].
    Patsakas AJ; Donta CN; Tsiklakis KD
    Hell Period Stomat Gnathopathoprosopike Cheir; 1989 Jun; 4(2):91-5. PubMed ID: 2640655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Absorbed radiation dose of the female breast during diagnostic multidetector chest CT and dose reduction with a tungsten-antimony composite breast shield: preliminary results.
    Parker MS; Kelleher NM; Hoots JA; Chung JK; Fatouros PP; Benedict SH
    Clin Radiol; 2008 Mar; 63(3):278-88. PubMed ID: 18275868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. New mammography screen/film combinations: imaging characteristics and radiation dose.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Zheutlin J; Gornbein JA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Apr; 154(4):713-9. PubMed ID: 2107663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An economic evaluation of the use of rare earth screens to reduce the radiation dose from diagnostic X-ray procedures in Israel.
    Ginsberg GM; Schlesinger T; Ben-Shlomo A; Kushilevsky A; Margaliot M; Oren M; Finkleman M; Friedman A; Handlesman M; Lev B
    Br J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 71(844):406-12. PubMed ID: 9659134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Tungsten anode tubes with K-edge filters for mammography.
    Beaman S; Lillicrap SC; Price JL
    Br J Radiol; 1983 Oct; 56(670):721-7. PubMed ID: 6616137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ambient dose equivalent and effective dose from scattered x-ray spectra in mammography for Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh and W/Rh anode/filter combinations.
    Künzel R; Herdade SB; Costa PR; Terini RA; Levenhagen RS
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(8):2077-91. PubMed ID: 16585846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Factors influencing the absorbed dose in intraoral radiography.
    Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Herz K; Reinert S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):506-13. PubMed ID: 18033949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Absorbed dose in xeromammography.
    Zárand P; Péntek Z
    Br J Radiol; 1980 Feb; 53(626):114-9. PubMed ID: 7370491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Image quality and patient dose for different screen-film combinations.
    Guibelalde E; Fernández JM; Vañó E; Llorca A; Ruiz MJ
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Feb; 67(794):166-73. PubMed ID: 8130979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of rare earth intensifying screens in cephalometric radiography.
    Stathopoulos V; Poulton DR
    Angle Orthod; 1990; 60(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 2180348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
    Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Reduction of patient dose with maximum assurance of image quality].
    Kuhn H
    Rontgenblatter; 1985 Jul; 38(7):224-30. PubMed ID: 4035266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.