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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8309434)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Optimum x-ray spectra for mammography.
    Beaman SA; Lillicrap SC
    Phys Med Biol; 1982 Oct; 27(10):1209-20. PubMed ID: 7146094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.
    Boyce SJ; Samei E
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):984-96. PubMed ID: 16696475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Photon counting computed tomography: concept and initial results.
    Shikhaliev PM; Xu T; Molloi S
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):427-36. PubMed ID: 15789589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Quantification of breast density with dual energy mammography: a simulation study.
    Ducote JL; Molloi S
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5411-8. PubMed ID: 19175100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. X-ray spectroscopy applied to radiation shielding calculation in mammography.
    Künzel R; Levenhagen RS; Herdade SB; Terini RA; Costa PR
    Med Phys; 2008 Aug; 35(8):3539-45. PubMed ID: 18777914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system.
    Mackenzie A; Dance DR; Workman A; Yip M; Wells K; Young KC
    Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2721-34. PubMed ID: 22559643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Screen-film mammographic technique for breast cancer screening.
    Stanton L; Day JL; Villafana T; Miller CH; Lightfoot DA
    Radiology; 1987 May; 163(2):471-9. PubMed ID: 3562829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems.
    Cooper VN; Oshiro T; Cagnon CH; Bassett LW; McLeod-Stockmann TM; Bezrukiy NV
    Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2614-21. PubMed ID: 14596297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Molybdenum, rhodium, and tungsten anode spectral models using interpolating polynomials with application to mammography.
    Boone JM; Fewell TR; Jennings RJ
    Med Phys; 1997 Dec; 24(12):1863-74. PubMed ID: 9434969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Anisotropic imaging performance in breast tomosynthesis.
    Badano A; Kyprianou IS; Jennings RJ; Sempau J
    Med Phys; 2007 Nov; 34(11):4076-91. PubMed ID: 18074617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Mean glandular dose estimation using MCNPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum+silver x-ray anode-filter combinations.
    Ma AK; Darambara DG; Stewart A; Gunn S; Bullard E
    Med Phys; 2008 Dec; 35(12):5278-89. PubMed ID: 19175087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A model for optimization of spectral shape in digital mammography.
    Fahrig R; Yaffe MJ
    Med Phys; 1994 Sep; 21(9):1463-71. PubMed ID: 7838058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Optimization of x-ray spectra in digital mammography through Monte Carlo simulations.
    Cunha DM; Tomal A; Poletti ME
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr; 57(7):1919-35. PubMed ID: 22421418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The x-ray sensitivity of amorphous selenium for mammography.
    Stone MF; Zhao W; Jacak BV; O'Connor P; Yu B; Rehak P
    Med Phys; 2002 Mar; 29(3):319-24. PubMed ID: 11929014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Physical characterization of a prototype selenium-based full field digital mammography detector.
    Saunders RS; Samei E; Jesneck JL; Lo JY
    Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):588-99. PubMed ID: 15789606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Feasibility of estimating volumetric breast density from mammographic x-ray spectra using a cadmium telluride photon-counting detector.
    Ghammraoui B; Badal A; Glick SJ
    Med Phys; 2018 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 29862520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Amorphous In-Ga-Zn-O thin-film transistor active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis.
    Zhao C; Kanicki J
    Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091902. PubMed ID: 25186389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.