244 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8090926)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography.
Wu X; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
Radiology; 1991 Apr; 179(1):143-8. PubMed ID: 2006265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
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. 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]
11. Real-time estimation system for mean glandular dose in mammography.
Matsumoto M; Inoue S; Honda I; Yamamoto S; Ueguchi T; Ogata Y; Johkoh T
Radiat Med; 2003; 21(6):280-4. PubMed ID: 14743903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Mean glandular dose coefficients (D(g)N) for x-ray spectra used in contemporary breast imaging systems.
Nosratieh A; Hernandez A; Shen SZ; Yaffe MJ; Seibert JA; Boone JM
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Sep; 60(18):7179-90. PubMed ID: 26348995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
