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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9029537)

  • 1. Investigation of the line-pair pattern method for evaluating mammographic focal spot performance.
    Goodsitt MM; Chan HP; Liu B
    Med Phys; 1997 Jan; 24(1):11-5. PubMed ID: 9029537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of lesion positioning on digital magnification mammography performance.
    Liu F; Kanal KM; Stewart BK; Lehman CD
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun; 17(6):791-4. PubMed ID: 20399685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.
    Funke M; Breiter N; Hermann KP; Oestmann JW; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 1998 May; 71(845):528-34. PubMed ID: 9691898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.
    Tomon JJ; Johnson TE; Swenson KN; Schauer DA
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.
    Yip WM; Pang SY; Yim WS; Kwok CS
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Jul; 74(883):621-8. PubMed ID: 11509398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The influence of focal spot size on image resolution and test phantom scores in mammography.
    Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1993 May; 66(785):441-6. PubMed ID: 8319066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
    Bor D; Akdur K
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography.
    McParland BJ; Boyd MM
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Jun; 73(870):613-26. PubMed ID: 10911785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Focal spot size and scatter suppression in magnification mammography.
    Muntz EP; Logan WW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1979 Sep; 133(3):453-9. PubMed ID: 111504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dose reduction in full-field digital mammography: an anthropomorphic breast phantom study.
    Obenauer S; Hermann KP; Grabbe E
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Jul; 76(907):478-82. PubMed ID: 12857708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Breast composition and radiographic breast equivalence.
    McLean D
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1997 Mar; 20(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 9141308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The quality mammographic image. A review of its components.
    Rickard MT
    Australas Radiol; 1989 Nov; 33(4):328-34. PubMed ID: 2633732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effects of breast thickness and lesion location on resolution in digital magnification mammography.
    Park HS; Oh Y; Kim ST; Kim HJ
    Clin Imaging; 2012; 36(4):255-62. PubMed ID: 22726961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Slit camera focal spot measurement errors in mammography.
    Tang S; Barnes GT; Tanner RL
    Med Phys; 1995 Nov; 22(11 Pt 1):1803-14. PubMed ID: 8587535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.