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

  • 21.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Visibility of microcalcification in cone beam breast CT: effects of X-ray tube voltage and radiation dose.
    Lai CJ, Shaw CC, Chen L, Altunbas MC, Liu X, Han T, Wang T, Yang WT, Whitman GJ, Tu SJ.
    Med Phys; 2007 Jul; 34(7):2995-3004. PubMed ID: 17822008
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. 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 Jul; 27(3):211-216. PubMed ID: 29514152
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations.
    McLean D, Eckert M, Heard R, Chan W.
    Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Dose reduction in automatic optimization parameter of full field digital mammography: breast phantom study.
    Ko MS, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Kim JH, Kim MJ.
    J Breast Cancer; 2013 Mar; 16(1):90-6. PubMed ID: 23593088
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. 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 07; 62(9):3523-3538. PubMed ID: 28379851
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
    James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb 07; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.
    Meyblum E, Gardavaud F, Dao TH, Fournier V, Beaussart P, Pigneur F, Baranes L, Rahmouni A, Luciani A.
    Diagn Interv Imaging; 2015 Sep 07; 96(9):931-9. PubMed ID: 25908324
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. 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 07; 25(12):2410-6. PubMed ID: 9874835
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Radiographic techniques in screen-film mammography.
    LaVoy TR, Huda W, Ogden KM.
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2002 Dec 07; 3(3):248-54. PubMed ID: 12132948
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography.
    de las Heras H, Schöfer F, Tiller B, Chevalier M, Zwettler G, Semturs F.
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Apr 21; 58(8):L17-30. PubMed ID: 23528479
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
    Alvarez M, Pina DR, Miranda JR, Duarte SB.
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov 07; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape.
    Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C.
    Radiology; 2004 Nov 07; 233(2):515-22. PubMed ID: 15358847
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Relationship between phantom failure rates and radiation dose in mammography accreditation.
    Haus AG, Yaffe MJ, Feig SA, Hendrick RE, Butler PA, Wilcox PA, Bansal S.
    Med Phys; 2001 Nov 07; 28(11):2297-301. PubMed ID: 11764036
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. CT head-scan dosimetry in an anthropomorphic phantom and associated measurement of ACR accreditation-phantom imaging metrics under clinically representative scan conditions.
    Brunner CC, Stern SH, Minniti R, Parry MI, Skopec M, Chakrabarti K.
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug 07; 40(8):081917. PubMed ID: 23927331
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Effects of lesion positioning on digital magnification mammography performance.
    Liu F, Kanal KM, Stewart BK, Lehman CD.
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun 07; 17(6):791-4. PubMed ID: 20399685
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Comparative power law analysis of structured breast phantom and patient images in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Cockmartin L, Bosmans H, Marshall NW.
    Med Phys; 2013 Aug 07; 40(8):081920. PubMed ID: 23927334
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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