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 *

79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7938738)

  • 21. Parametrization of mammography normalized average glandular dose tables.
    Sobol WT; Wu X
    Med Phys; 1997 Apr; 24(4):547-54. PubMed ID: 9127307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Controlled single-blind clinical evaluation of low-dose mammographic screen--film systems.
    Sickles EA; Genant HK
    Radiology; 1979 Feb; 130(2):347-51. PubMed ID: 760148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. [Physics, dosimetry, and quality control in mammography].
    Scielzo G; Maggi S
    Radiol Med; 1993 Nov; 86(5):687-94. PubMed ID: 8272556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Niobium/molybdenum K-edge filtration in mammography: contrast and dose evaluation.
    Calicchia A; Gambaccini M; Indovina PL; Mazzei F; Pugliani L
    Phys Med Biol; 1996 Sep; 41(9):1717-26. PubMed ID: 8884908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Comparison of exposure standards in the mammography x-ray region.
    Coletti JG; Pearson DW; DeWerd LA; O'Brien CM; Lamperti PJ
    Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1263-7. PubMed ID: 9284250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Influence of anode and filter material on image quality and glandular dose for screen-film mammography.
    Desponds L; Depeursinge C; Grecescu M; Hessler C; Samiri A; Valley JF
    Phys Med Biol; 1991 Sep; 36(9):1165-82. PubMed ID: 1946601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [A program devoted to dose and quality in mammography (DQM)].
    Rimondi O; Gambaccini M; Indovina P; Candini G
    Radiol Med; 1986 Mar; 72(3):116-20. PubMed ID: 3704212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. [Dosimetric experience with mammography].
    Comino E; Milani R; Negri GL; Suria G
    Minerva Med; 1978 Jul; 69(33):2235-40. PubMed ID: 683575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. [Comparison of Contrast to Noise Ratio and Signal Difference to Noise Ratio Based on QA and QC Guidelines in CR Mammography].
    Nagami A; Ishii M; Ishii R; Kodama S; Sanada T; Yoshida A
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2016 Jun; 72(6):503-13. PubMed ID: 27320154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Calculated mammographic spectra confirmed with attenuation curves for molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten targets.
    Blough MM; Waggener RG; Payne WH; Terry JA
    Med Phys; 1998 Sep; 25(9):1605-12. PubMed ID: 9775364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Mammography in Lodz--doses and conditions of diagnostic devices].
    Staniszewska MA; Papierz S
    Med Pr; 2002; 53(4):307-10. PubMed ID: 12474409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The resulting skin dose in two-view mammography examinations.
    Adliene D; Cibulskaite I; Laurikaitiene J; Adlys G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):298-302. PubMed ID: 20200100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Thermoluminescent dosimeters for in vivo measurement of radiation exposure and related dose in mammography.
    Omran HA
    Radiol Technol; 1982; 53(5):383-92. PubMed ID: 6927768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Effects of a defective filter on magnification image quality in mammography.
    Cardenosa G; Eklund GW
    Radiology; 1992 Mar; 182(3):894-5. PubMed ID: 1535914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.