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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8785620)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography.
    McParland BJ
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1068-77. PubMed ID: 11271899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations.
    McLean D; Eckert M; Heard R; Chan W
    Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
    Sommer A; Schopphoven S; Land I; Blaser D; Sobczak T;
    Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of equipment performance, patient dose, imaging quality, and diagnostic coincidence in five Mexico City mammography services.
    Brandan ME; Ruiz-Trejo C; Verdejo-Silva M; Guevara M; Lozano-Zalce H; Madero-Preciado L; Martín J; Noel-Etienne LM; Ramírez-Arias JL; Soto J; Villaseñor Y
    Arch Med Res; 2004; 35(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 15036796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [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]  

  • 12. Mammographic Phantoms Frequently Used to Determine Image Quality: A Comparative Study.
    AlKhalifah K; Brindabhan A
    J Allied Health; 2017; 46(4):239-242. PubMed ID: 29202159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A survey on performance status of mammography machines: image quality and dosimetry studies using a standard mammography imaging phantom.
    Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jul; 150(3):325-33. PubMed ID: 22090414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Quality control programme in mammography: second level quality controls.
    Nassivera E; Nardin L
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Jun; 70(834):612-8. PubMed ID: 9227255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of mammographic phantoms.
    Faulkner K; Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Feb; 67(794):174-80. PubMed ID: 8130980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control.
    Friedrich MA
    Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of patient dose in some mammography centres in Iran.
    Paknyat A; Samarin ER; Jeshvaghane NA; Paydar R; Fasaei B; Karamloo A; Khosravi HR; Deevband MR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):192-5. PubMed ID: 21816723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Image quality assessment in digital mammography: part II. NPWE as a validated alternative for contrast detail analysis.
    Monnin P; Marshall NW; Bosmans H; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2011 Jul; 56(14):4221-38. PubMed ID: 21701050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Objective assessment of phantom image quality in mammography: a feasibility study.
    Castellano Smith AD; Castellano Smith IA; Dance DR
    Br J Radiol; 1998 Jan; 71(841):48-58. PubMed ID: 9534699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Mammography -a guidance level and the present situation of mammographic dose-].
    Terada H
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(2):65-73. PubMed ID: 12766282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.