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 *

220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9127443)

  • 41. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
    Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
    Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
    Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
    Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients from experimental mammographic x-ray spectra.
    Santos JC; Tomal A; de Barros N; Costa PR
    Phys Med Biol; 2019 May; 64(10):105010. PubMed ID: 30959490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Estimated Average Glandular Dose for 1,828 Mammography Procedures in China: A Multicenter Study.
    DU X; Wang J; Zhu BL
    Biomed Environ Sci; 2019 Apr; 32(4):242-249. PubMed ID: 31217060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Monochromatic mammography using scanning multilayer X-ray mirrors.
    Windt DL
    Rev Sci Instrum; 2018 Aug; 89(8):083702. PubMed ID: 30184654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.
    Dance DR; Skinner CL; Young KC; Beckett JR; Kotre CJ
    Phys Med Biol; 2000 Nov; 45(11):3225-40. PubMed ID: 11098900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Effect of breast composition on patient exposure in mammography].
    Asada Y; Suzuki S; Yamada M; Sakurai K; Susa H; Maeda S; Ito M; Takeuchi Y; Shirakawa H
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Dec; 60(12):1675-81. PubMed ID: 15614218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. [Average glandular tissue dose and image quality in screen-film mammography].
    Kohama C; Yoshida A; Kodera Y
    Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Sep; 60(9):1332-9. PubMed ID: 15459570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Monte Carlo simulation of average glandular dose and an investigation of influencing factors.
    Nigapruke K; Puwanich P; Phaisangittisakul N; Youngdee W
    J Radiat Res; 2010; 51(4):441-8. PubMed ID: 20523013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system.
    Morán P; Chevalier M; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Vañó E
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):375-9. PubMed ID: 15933140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Thickness of molybdenum filter and squared contrast-to-noise ratio per dose for digital mammography.
    Nishino TK; Wu X; Johnson RF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):960-3. PubMed ID: 16177415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. EVALUATION OF RADIATION DOSE FOR PATIENTS UNDERGOING MAMMOGRAPHY IN QATAR.
    AlNaemi H; Aly A; J Omar A; AlObadli A; Ciraj-Bjelac O; Kharita MH; Rehani MM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2020 Jul; 189(3):354-361. PubMed ID: 32342104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Monte Carlo performance on the x-ray converter thickness in digital mammography using software breast models.
    Liaparinos P; Bliznakova K
    Med Phys; 2012 Nov; 39(11):6638-51. PubMed ID: 23127058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Detectability comparison between a high energy x-ray phase sensitive and mammography systems in imaging phantoms with varying glandular-adipose ratios.
    Ghani MU; Wong MD; Wu D; Zheng B; Fajardo LL; Yan A; Fuh J; Wu X; Liu H
    Phys Med Biol; 2017 May; 62(9):3523-3538. PubMed ID: 28379851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography.
    Smathers RL; Boone JM; Lee LJ; Berns EA; Miller RA; Wright AM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 May; 188(5):1414-21. PubMed ID: 17449790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Effects on image quality of a 2D antiscatter grid in x-ray digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience using the dual modality (x-ray and molecular) breast tomosynthesis scanner.
    Patel T; Peppard H; Williams MB
    Med Phys; 2016 Apr; 43(4):1720. PubMed ID: 27036570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Indices for the evaluation of glandular dose heterogeneity in full-field digital mammography.
    Shinohara S; Araki F; Maeda M; Okamoto R; Nakamura M; Higashida Y
    J Radiol Prot; 2020 Nov; 40(4):. PubMed ID: 33120368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.