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 *

88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9048372)

  • 21. Trends in compressed breast thickness and radiation dose in breast screening mammography.
    Robinson M; Kotre CJ
    Br J Radiol; 2008 Mar; 81(963):214-8. PubMed ID: 18270295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of mammography radiation dose values obtained from direct incident air kerma measurements with values from measured X-ray spectral data.
    Assiamah M; Nam TL; Keddy RJ
    Appl Radiat Isot; 2005 Apr; 62(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 15701409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Monte Carlo simulation for correlation analysis of average glandular dose by breast thickness and glandular ratio in breast tissue.
    Kim ST; Cho JK
    Technol Health Care; 2014; 22(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 24704647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Glandularity and mean glandular dose determined for individual women at four regional breast cancer screening units in the Netherlands.
    Zoetelief J; Veldkamp WJ; Thijssen MA; Jansen JT
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Apr; 51(7):1807-17. PubMed ID: 16552106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    Moseley TW
    Clin Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Jun; 59(2):362-79. PubMed ID: 27101241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Mammographic image quality and exposure in South East Asia.
    Ng KH; DeWerd LA; Schmidt RC
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2000 Dec; 23(4):135-7. PubMed ID: 11376538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Mammography of a phantom and breast tissue with synchrotron radiation and a linear-array silicon detector.
    Arfelli F; Bonvicini V; Bravin A; Cantatore G; Castelli E; Dalla Palma L; Di Michiel M; Longo R; Olivo A; Pani S; Pontoni D; Poropat P; Prest M; Rashevsky A; Tromba G; Vacchi A
    Radiology; 1998 Sep; 208(3):709-15. PubMed ID: 9722850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Dosage evaluation in mammography.
    Stanton L; Villafana T; Day JL; Lightfoot DA
    Radiology; 1984 Feb; 150(2):577-84. PubMed ID: 6691119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Monte Carlo generated conversion factors for the estimation of average glandular dose in contact and magnification mammography.
    Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov; 51(21):5539-48. PubMed ID: 17047268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of exposure in mammography: limitations of average glandular dose and proposal of a new quantity.
    Geeraert N; Klausz R; Muller S; Bloch I; Bosmans H
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):342-5. PubMed ID: 25897143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Comprehensive dose survey of breast screening in Ireland.
    Baldelli P; McCullagh J; Phelan N; Flanagan F
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Apr; 145(1):52-60. PubMed ID: 21097483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [A computerized manual for assessing the dosage absorbed by breast tissue in mammography].
    Bagni B; Pedrazzini L
    Radiol Med; 1988 Nov; 76(5):479-85. PubMed ID: 3060905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Dosimetric evaluation of the mean glandular dose for mammography in Korean women: a preliminary report.
    Oh KK; Hur J; Kim EK; Choo SS
    Yonsei Med J; 2003 Oct; 44(5):863-8. PubMed ID: 14584104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Patient dose in digital mammography.
    Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of ion chamber and TLD dosimetry in mammography.
    Stanton L; Day JL; Brattelli SD; Lightfoot DA; Vince MA; Stanton RE
    Med Phys; 1981; 8(6):792-8. PubMed ID: 7322077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Average glandular dose conversion coefficients for segmented breast voxel models.
    Zankl M; Fill U; Hoeschen C; Panzer W; Regulla D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):410-4. PubMed ID: 15933148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography.
    Kruger RL; Schueler BA
    Med Phys; 2001 Jul; 28(7):1449-54. PubMed ID: 11488578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium.
    Smans K; Bosmans H; Xiao M; Carton AK; Marchal G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):321-6. PubMed ID: 16464839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
    Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
    Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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