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.
165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8058019)
41. Design of a high resolution positron emission tomograph: the Neuro-PET. Brooks RA; Sank VJ; Di Chiro G; Friauf WS; Leighton SB J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1980 Feb; 4(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 6965500 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Scatter distribution in transmission measurements with positron emission tomography. Chan B; Bergström M; Palmer MR; Sayre C; Pate BD J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1986; 10(2):296-301. PubMed ID: 3485125 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. List-mode maximum-likelihood reconstruction applied to positron emission mammography (PEM) with irregular sampling. Huesman RH; Klein GJ; Moses WW; Qi J; Reutter BW; Virador PR IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2000 May; 19(5):532-7. PubMed ID: 11021696 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Wedge-shaped BGO scintillation crystal for positron emission tomography: concise communication. Cho ZH; Lee HS; Hong KS J Nucl Med; 1984 Aug; 25(8):901-4. PubMed ID: 6611391 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Accurate modeling of a DOI capable small animal PET scanner using GATE. Zagni F; D'Ambrosio D; Spinelli AE; Cicoria G; Fanti S; Marengo M Appl Radiat Isot; 2013 May; 75():105-14. PubMed ID: 23501360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. Bernhardt P; Mertelmeier T; Hoheisel M Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4337-49. PubMed ID: 17153413 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Influence of scatter reduction method and monochromatic beams on image quality and dose in mammography. Moeckli R; Verdun FR; Fiedler S; Pachoud M; Bulling S; Schnyder P; Valley JF Med Phys; 2003 Dec; 30(12):3156-64. PubMed ID: 14713082 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Validation of GATE Monte Carlo simulations of the GE Advance/Discovery LS PET scanners. Schmidtlein CR; Kirov AS; Nehmeh SA; Erdi YE; Humm JL; Amols HI; Bidaut LM; Ganin A; Stearns CW; McDaniel DL; Hamacher KA Med Phys; 2006 Jan; 33(1):198-208. PubMed ID: 16485426 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Monte Carlo simulation of primary electron production inside an a-selenium detector for x-ray mammography: physics. Sakellaris T; Spyrou G; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G Phys Med Biol; 2005 Aug; 50(16):3717-38. PubMed ID: 16077223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Singles transmission in volume-imaging PET with a 137Cs source. Karp JS; Muehllehner G; Qu H; Yan XH Phys Med Biol; 1995 May; 40(5):929-44. PubMed ID: 7652016 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Use of a magnetic field to increase the spatial resolution of positron emission tomography. Hammer BE; Christensen NL; Heil BG Med Phys; 1994 Dec; 21(12):1917-20. PubMed ID: 7700198 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography. Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Computer analysis of mammography phantom images (CAMPI): an application to the measurement of microcalcification image quality of directly acquired digital images. Chakraborty DP Med Phys; 1997 Aug; 24(8):1269-77. PubMed ID: 9284251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. [Direct digital magnification mammography with a large-surface detector made of amorphous silicon]. Hermann KP; Hundertmark C; Funke M; von Brenndorff A; Grabbe E Rofo; 1999 May; 170(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 10370416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. PETSIM: Monte Carlo simulation of all sensitivity and resolution parameters of cylindrical positron imaging systems. Thompson CJ; Moreno-Cantu J; Picard Y Phys Med Biol; 1992 Mar; 37(3):731-49. PubMed ID: 1565700 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Observer performance and dose efficiency of mammographic scanning equalization radiography. Sabol JM; Soutar IC; Plewes DB Med Phys; 1993; 20(5):1517-25. PubMed ID: 8289736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Mismatch in breast and detector size during screening and diagnostic mammography results in increased patient radiation dose. Wells CL; Slanetz PJ; Rosen MP Acad Radiol; 2014 Jan; 21(1):99-103. PubMed ID: 24331271 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Experimental investigations of image quality in X-ray mammography with a conventional screen film system (SFS) and a new full-field digital mammography unit (DR) with a-Se-detector. Schulz-Wendtland R; Wenkel E; Schmid A; Imhoff K; Bautz W Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):766-8. PubMed ID: 12811687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements. Raylman RR; Majewski S; Smith MF; Proffitt J; Hammond W; Srinivasan A; McKisson J; Popov V; Weisenberger A; Judy CO; Kross B; Ramasubramanian S; Banta LE; Kinahan PE; Champley K Phys Med Biol; 2008 Feb; 53(3):637-53. PubMed ID: 18199907 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Detectors for digital mammography. Yaffe MJ; Mainprize JG Technol Cancer Res Treat; 2004 Aug; 3(4):309-24. PubMed ID: 15270582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]