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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

200 related items for PubMed ID: 12139090

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Which phantom is better for assessing the image quality in full-field digital mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation phantom versus digital mammography accreditation phantom.
    Song SE, Seo BK, Yie A, Ku BK, Kim HY, Cho KR, Chung HH, Lee SH, Hwang KW.
    Korean J Radiol; 2012 Mar; 13(6):776-83. PubMed ID: 23118577
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Optimal technique factors for magnification mammography.
    Huda W, Steinbach BG, Geiser WR, Belden CJ.
    Invest Radiol; 1997 Jul; 32(7):378-81. PubMed ID: 9228602
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Validity of Using Accreditation Phantom in Quality Control of Digital Tomosynthesis.
    Al Khalifah K, Brindabhan A, Mathew M, Davidson R.
    J Allied Health; 2019 Oct; 48(1):e15-e19. PubMed ID: 30826837
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography.
    Gkanatsios NA, Huda W, Peters KR.
    Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1643-50. PubMed ID: 12201409
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.