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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7551786)

  • 21. Evaluation of mean glandular dose in a full-field digital mammography unit in Tabriz, Iran.
    Alizadeh Riabi H; Mehnati P; Mesbahi A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Dec; 142(2-4):222-7. PubMed ID: 20823039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Effect of breast composition on patient exposure in mammography].
    Asada Y; Suzuki S; Yamada M; Sakurai K; Susa H; Maeda S; Ito M; Takeuchi Y; Shirakawa H
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Dec; 60(12):1675-81. PubMed ID: 15614218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Average glandular dose conversion coefficients for segmented breast voxel models.
    Zankl M; Fill U; Hoeschen C; Panzer W; Regulla D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):410-4. PubMed ID: 15933148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Uncertainties involved in the estimation of mean glandular dose for women in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP).
    Hauge IH; Olerud HM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jun; 155(1):81-7. PubMed ID: 23188812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Comprehensive dose survey of breast screening in Ireland.
    Baldelli P; McCullagh J; Phelan N; Flanagan F
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Apr; 145(1):52-60. PubMed ID: 21097483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients.
    Ciraj-Bjelac O; Beciric S; Arandjic D; Kosutic D; Kovacevic M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 20159918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998.
    Young KC; Burch A
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Mar; 73(867):278-87. PubMed ID: 10817044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Breast dosimetry.
    Dance DR; Skinner CL; Carlsson GA
    Appl Radiat Isot; 1999 Jan; 50(1):185-203. PubMed ID: 10028637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Patient dose and risk in mammography.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1991 Apr; 64(760):360-5. PubMed ID: 2025777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer.
    Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Apr; 74(880):335-40. PubMed ID: 11387152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Radiation dose and risk in screening mammography.
    Adcock DF; Howe DB
    J Med Syst; 1994 Aug; 18(4):173-8. PubMed ID: 7829978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparison of mean glandular dose diagnostic reference levels within the all-digital Irish National Breast Screening Programme and the Irish Symptomatic Breast Services.
    O'Leary D; Rainford L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Mar; 153(3):300-8. PubMed ID: 22740646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.
    Helvie MA; Chan HP; Adler DD; Boyd PG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Dec; 163(6):1371-4. PubMed ID: 7992731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Entrance skin exposure and mean glandular dose: effect of scatter and field gradient at mammography.
    Ng KH; Aus RJ; DeWerd LA; Vetter JR
    Radiology; 1997 Nov; 205(2):395-8. PubMed ID: 9356619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of quality assurance regulatory enforcement on performance of mammography systems: evidence from large-scale surveys in Taiwan.
    Hwang YS; Tsai HY; Chen CC; Tsay PK; Pan HB; Hsu GC; Lin JH; Chui CS; Wan YL; Liu HL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Aug; 201(2):W307-12. PubMed ID: 23883245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluation of patient dose for mammography in Pernambuco, Brazil.
    Khoury HJ; Barros VS; Lopes C
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 115(1-4):337-9. PubMed ID: 16381742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
    Sommer A; Schopphoven S; Land I; Blaser D; Sobczak T;
    Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluation of patient dose in some mammography centres in Iran.
    Paknyat A; Samarin ER; Jeshvaghane NA; Paydar R; Fasaei B; Karamloo A; Khosravi HR; Deevband MR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):192-5. PubMed ID: 21816723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.