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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7360961)

  • 1. Evaluation of absorbed dose in mammography: monte carlo simulation studies.
    Doi K; Chan HP
    Radiology; 1980 Apr; 135(1):199-208. PubMed ID: 7360961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment.
    Boone JM
    Radiology; 1999 Oct; 213(1):23-37. PubMed ID: 10540637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An investigation of backscatter factors for kilovoltage x-rays: a comparison between Monte Carlo simulations and Gafchromic EBT film measurements.
    Kim J; Hill R; Claridge Mackonis E; Kuncic Z
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(3):783-97. PubMed ID: 20071763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography.
    Wu X; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
    Radiology; 1991 Apr; 179(1):143-8. PubMed ID: 2006265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A Monte Carlo study of monoenergetic and polyenergetic normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients in mammography.
    Sarno A; Mettivier G; Di Lillo F; Russo P
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 Jan; 62(1):306-325. PubMed ID: 27991451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Normalized average glandular dose in magnification mammography.
    Liu B; Goodsitt M; Chan HP
    Radiology; 1995 Oct; 197(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 7568836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Dance DR; Thilander AK; Sandborg M; Skinner CL; Castellano IA; Carlsson GA
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Investigation of absorbed radiation dose in refraction-enhanced breast tomosynthesis by a Laue case analyser.
    Sato H; Ando M; Shimao D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Jul; 146(1-3):231-3. PubMed ID: 21515613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Review of Kerma-Area Product and total energy incident on patients in radiography, mammography and CT.
    Yao H; Huda W; Mah E; He W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Feb; 163(2):251-60. PubMed ID: 24821931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Monte Carlo calculation of integral radiation dose in xeromammography.
    Dance DR
    Phys Med Biol; 1980 Jan; 25(1):25-37. PubMed ID: 7360790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Monte Carlo calculation of monoenergetic and polyenergetic DgN coefficients for mean glandular dose estimates in mammography using a homogeneous breast model.
    Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; di Franco F; Russo P
    Phys Med Biol; 2019 Jun; 64(12):125012. PubMed ID: 31141793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of scatter-to-primary ratio, grid performance and normalized average glandular dose in mammography by Monte Carlo simulation including interference and energy broadening effects.
    Cunha DM; Tomal A; Poletti ME
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Aug; 55(15):4335-59. PubMed ID: 20647608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Absorbed radiation dose in mammography.
    Hammerstein GR; Miller DW; White DR; Masterson ME; Woodard HQ; Laughlin JS
    Radiology; 1979 Feb; 130(2):485-91. PubMed ID: 760167
    [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. [Absorption dose in scintimammography and in X-rays mammography].
    Lyra M; Vamvakas I; Gavriilelli M; Chatzigiannis C
    Hell J Nucl Med; 2010; 13(1):81-7. PubMed ID: 20411183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Scatter/primary in mammography: Monte Carlo validation.
    Boone JM; Cooper VN
    Med Phys; 2000 Aug; 27(8):1818-31. PubMed ID: 10984229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [The Difference in Backscatter Factors of Diagnostic X-rays by the Difference in the Scattering Medium and in the Objective Dose].
    Kato H; Sakai K; Uchiyama M; Suzuki K
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2016; 72(10):1007-1014. PubMed ID: 27760900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation.
    Boone JM; Nelson TR; Lindfors KK; Seibert JA
    Radiology; 2001 Dec; 221(3):657-67. PubMed ID: 11719660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion coefficients for dose estimation in mammography based on a 3D detailed breast model.
    Wang W; Qiu R; Ren L; Liu H; Wu Z; Li C; Niu Y; Li J
    Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2503-2514. PubMed ID: 28295395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography.
    Wu X; Gingold EL; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
    Radiology; 1994 Oct; 193(1):83-9. PubMed ID: 8090926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.