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 *

186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8032809)

  • 1. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Vanó E
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Jun; 67(798):556-63. PubMed ID: 8032809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the Madrid area.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Vañó E
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jan; 69(817):42-8. PubMed ID: 8785620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Patient investigation of average glandular dose and incident air kerma for digital mammography.
    Kawaguchi A; Matsunaga Y; Otsuka T; Suzuki S
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):102-8. PubMed ID: 24234736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Vañó E
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):375-9. PubMed ID: 15933140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
    Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
    Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dosimetric characterization of a dedicated breast computed tomography clinical prototype.
    Sechopoulos I; Feng SS; D'Orsi CJ
    Med Phys; 2010 Aug; 37(8):4110-20. PubMed ID: 20879571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of mean glandular dose in mammography.
    Faulkner K; Law J; Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Aug; 68(812):877-81. PubMed ID: 7551786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria.
    Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reference levels for image quality in mammography.
    Zdesar U
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):170-2. PubMed ID: 18375465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of mammography radiation dose values obtained from direct incident air kerma measurements with values from measured X-ray spectral data.
    Assiamah M; Nam TL; Keddy RJ
    Appl Radiat Isot; 2005 Apr; 62(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 15701409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
    Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
    Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of image quality and mean absorbed dose to the breast for two mammographic films.
    Persliden J; Fransson V; Vitak B; Fagerberg G
    Acta Radiol; 1993 Jul; 34(4):351-5. PubMed ID: 8318296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - Clinical results.
    Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Marten K; Kehbel S; Fischer U; Grabbe E
    Rofo; 2002 Jun; 174(6):696-9. PubMed ID: 12063597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
    Kalathaki M; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Tritakis P; Kalyvas N; Simantirakis G; Manousaridis G; Kaisas I; Kamenopoulou V
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Relationship between phantom failure rates and radiation dose in mammography accreditation.
    Haus AG; Yaffe MJ; Feig SA; Hendrick RE; Butler PA; Wilcox PA; Bansal S
    Med Phys; 2001 Nov; 28(11):2297-301. PubMed ID: 11764036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography.
    McParland BJ; Boyd MM
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Jun; 73(870):613-26. PubMed ID: 10911785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography].
    Säbel M; Aichinger U; Schulz-Wendtland R
    Rofo; 2001 Feb; 173(2):79-91. PubMed ID: 11253092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.