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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8318296)

  • 21. Mammography in New Zealand: radiation dose and image quality.
    Poletti JL; Williamson BD; Mitchell AW
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Jun; 14(2):97-102. PubMed ID: 1747087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Absorbed dose in AgBr in direct film for photon energies ( < 150 keV): relation to optical density. Theoretical calculation and experimental evaluation.
    Helmrot E; Alm Carlsson G
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1996; 402():1-50. PubMed ID: 8677807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Increased radiation dose at mammography due to prolonged exposure, delayed processing, and increased film darkening.
    Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Chow S
    Radiology; 1991 Feb; 178(2):387-91. PubMed ID: 1987598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems].
    Schulz-Wendtland R; Aichinger U; Lell M; Kuchar I; Bautz W
    Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
    Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Optimal processing of Ektaspeed dental film.
    Fjellström CA; Fredholm U; Julin P; Rehnmark S
    Swed Dent J; 1986; 10(4):137-43. PubMed ID: 3466376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The influence of film processing temperature and time on mammographic image quality.
    Brink C; de Villiers JF; Lötter MG; van Zyl M
    Br J Radiol; 1993 Aug; 66(788):685-90. PubMed ID: 7719681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [A comparison of various mammographic techniques using freshly amputated breasts (author's transl)].
    Paterok EM; Säbel M; Weishaar J; Willgeroth F
    Rofo; 1978 Jul; 129(1):103-9. PubMed ID: 149719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [The dose and quality program in mammography (DQM). Results of the study carried out in 20 Fruili-Venezia Giulia centers].
    Cressa C; Zuiani C; Bregant P; Vidimari R; de Guarrini F
    Radiol Med; 1993 Dec; 86(6):893-8. PubMed ID: 8296013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A search for optimal x-ray spectra in iodine contrast media mammography.
    Ullman G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Yaffe M; Alm Carlsson G
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jul; 50(13):3143-52. PubMed ID: 15972986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Problems with film processing in medical X-ray imaging in Lithuania.
    Sniureviciute M; Adliene D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):260-3. PubMed ID: 15933118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit.
    Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Image quality and optical density in mammography: study on phantoms].
    Stinés J; Noël A; Estivalet S; Troufléau P; Netter E; Quinquis J
    J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 79(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 9757259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A comparison of an Agfa and Kodak film-screen combination for mammography.
    Dudson J
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1994 Dec; 17(4):211-6. PubMed ID: 7872903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Quality assurance of mammography in the province of Trent].
    Valentini A; Nassivera E; Voltolini A; Volani M; Gottardi S
    Radiol Med; 1993 Sep; 86(3):240-6. PubMed ID: 8210532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. High-contrast mammography with a moving grid: assessment of clinical utility.
    Sickles EA; Weber WN
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1986 Jun; 146(6):1137-9. PubMed ID: 3518365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Processing of mammographic films: technical and clinical considerations.
    Tabar L; Haus AG
    Radiology; 1989 Oct; 173(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 2781032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.