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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9874835)

  • 1. Establishing minimum performance standards, calibration intervals, and optimal exposure values for a whole breast digital mammography unit.
    Kimme-Smith C; Lewis C; Beifuss M; Williams MB; Bassett LW
    Med Phys; 1998 Dec; 25(12):2410-6. PubMed ID: 9874835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
    Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
    Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
    Aminah M; Ng KH; Abdullah BJ; Jamal N
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Phantom study to evaluate contrast-medium-enhanced digital subtraction mammography with a full-field indirect-detection system.
    Palma BA; Rosado-Méndez I; Villaseñor Y; Brandan ME
    Med Phys; 2010 Feb; 37(2):577-89. PubMed ID: 20229866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. How good is the ACR accreditation phantom for assessing image quality in digital mammography?
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Scalzetti EM; Dance DR
    Acad Radiol; 2002 Jul; 9(7):764-72. PubMed ID: 12139090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comparison between image quality in electronic zoom and geometric magnification in digital mammography.
    Alkhalifah KH; Brindhaban A; Asbeutah AM
    J Xray Sci Technol; 2016 Oct; 24(5):681-689. PubMed ID: 27341625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
    Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
    Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
    Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Effect of exposure factors on image quality in screening mammography.
    Alkhalifah K; Brindabhan A; Alsaeed R
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):e99-e102. PubMed ID: 28965911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
    Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
    Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose.
    Alkhalifah K; Brindhaban A
    Med Princ Pract; 2018; 27(3):211-216. PubMed ID: 29514152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Automatic technique parameter selection on a digital mammography system: an evaluation of SNR and CNR as a function of AGD on a GE senographe DS.
    Thomson FJ
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2006 Sep; 29(3):251-6. PubMed ID: 17058586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.