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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7753987)

  • 1. Contrast and dose with Mo-Mo, Mo-Rh, and Rh-Rh target-filter combinations in mammography.
    Gingold EL; Wu X; Barnes GT
    Radiology; 1995 Jun; 195(3):639-44. PubMed ID: 7753987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
    Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Mammograms obtained with rhodium vs molybdenum anodes: contrast and dose differences.
    Kimme-Smith C; Wang J; DeBruhl N; Basic M; Bassett LW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jun; 162(6):1313-7. PubMed ID: 8191989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
    Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
    Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography.
    Smathers RL; Boone JM; Lee LJ; Berns EA; Miller RA; Wright AM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 May; 188(5):1414-21. PubMed ID: 17449790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
    Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
    Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
    Kimme-Smith CM; Sayre JW; McCombs MM; DeBruhl ND; Bassett LW
    Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Short communication: kilovoltage measurement with rhodium target and filters on mammography X-ray machines.
    Underwood AC; Law J; Goodman DA; Robinson A; Rust A
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Aug; 69(824):769-73. PubMed ID: 8949681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Breast composition and radiographic breast equivalence.
    McLean D
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1997 Mar; 20(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 9141308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
    Toroi P; Zanca F; Young KC; van Ongeval C; Marchal G; Bosmans H
    Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Optimization of radiation dose and image quality in mammography: a clinical evaluation of rhodium versus molybdenum.
    Monticciolo DL; Sprawls P; Kruse BD; Peterson JE
    South Med J; 1996 Apr; 89(4):391-4. PubMed ID: 8614878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.
    Nishino TK; Wu X; Johnson RF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):960-3. PubMed ID: 16177415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The relationship between the attenuation properties of breast microcalcifications and aluminum.
    Zanca F; Van Ongeval C; Marshall N; Meylaers T; Michielsen K; Marchal G; Bosmans H
    Phys Med Biol; 2010 Feb; 55(4):1057-68. PubMed ID: 20090185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.