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

274 related items for PubMed ID: 18283065

  • 1. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
    Muhogora WE, Devetti A, Padovani R, Msaki P, Bonutti F.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
    Kalathaki M, Hourdakis CJ, Economides S, Tritakis P, Kalyvas N, Simantirakis G, Manousaridis G, Kaisas I, Kamenopoulou V.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
    Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug 07; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
    [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 07; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria.
    Vassileva J, Avramova-Cholakova S, Dimov A, Lichev A.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 May 07; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Image quality measurements and metrics in full field digital mammography: an overview.
    Bosmans H, Carton AK, Rogge F, Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C, Nijs K, Van Steen A, Marchal G.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 May 07; 117(1-3):120-30. PubMed ID: 16461531
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
    Gennaro G, Ferro F, Contento G, Fornasin F, di Maggio C.
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar 07; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Evaluation of dual-energy subtraction of digital mammography images under conditions found in a commercial unit.
    Brandan ME, Ramírez-R V.
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 May 07; 51(9):2307-20. PubMed ID: 16625044
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Quality assurance of computed and digital radiography systems.
    Walsh C, Gorman D, Byrne P, Larkin A, Dowling A, Malone JF.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008 May 07; 129(1-3):271-5. PubMed ID: 18319281
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
    Klausz R, Shramchenko N.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 May 07; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 14.