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

171 related items for PubMed ID: 23257608

  • 21. [Image quality and optical density in mammography: study on phantoms].
    Stinés J, Noël A, Estivalet S, Troufléau P, Netter E, Quinquis J.
    J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 79(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 9757259
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Mammography of a phantom and breast tissue with synchrotron radiation and a linear-array silicon detector.
    Arfelli F, Bonvicini V, Bravin A, Cantatore G, Castelli E, Dalla Palma L, Di Michiel M, Longo R, Olivo A, Pani S, Pontoni D, Poropat P, Prest M, Rashevsky A, Tromba G, Vacchi A.
    Radiology; 1998 Sep; 208(3):709-15. PubMed ID: 9722850
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Hermann KP, Wenkel E, Böhner C, Lell M, Dassel MS, Bautz WA.
    Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. [Experiences with phantom measurements in different mammographic systems].
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Aichinger U, Lell M, Kuchar I, Bautz W.
    Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1243-6. PubMed ID: 12375196
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Mammography Dose Survey Using International Quality Standards.
    Boujemaa S, Bosmans H, Bentayeb F.
    J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Dec; 50(4):529-535. PubMed ID: 31420271
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. [Dose reduction through gridless technique in digital full-field mammography].
    Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Berzeg S, Bick U, Fischer T, Hamm B.
    Rofo; 2003 Jun; 175(6):769-74. PubMed ID: 12811688
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. 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]

  • 29.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. [Needle crystal detector technology in mammography--relationship between image quality and dose depending on beam quality].
    Semturs F, Peloschek P, Zwettler G, Hummel J, Homolka P.
    Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):905-10. PubMed ID: 22692993
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.
    Tomon JJ, Johnson TE, Swenson KN, Schauer DA.
    Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. 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]

  • 33. Analysis of the threshold image contrast obtained with the CDMAM 3.4 and CDMAM 4.0 phantoms.
    Biegała M, Jakubowska T, Stępińska A, Woźniak P.
    Phys Eng Sci Med; 2023 Jun; 46(2):897-902. PubMed ID: 37185808
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. [Comparison of two automatic evaluation methods on Images of the CDMAM test phantom].
    Blendl C, Loos C, Eiben B.
    Rofo; 2009 Jul; 181(7):637-43. PubMed ID: 19513964
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Conversion factors between human and automatic readouts of CDMAM phantom images of CR mammography systems.
    Figl M, Homolka P, Osanna-Elliott A, Semturs F, Kaar M, Hummel J.
    Phys Med Biol; 2016 Sep 21; 61(18):N514-N521. PubMed ID: 27580001
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Toward objective and quantitative evaluation of imaging systems using images of phantoms.
    Gagne RM, Gallas BD, Myers KJ.
    Med Phys; 2006 Jan 21; 33(1):83-95. PubMed ID: 16485413
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Impact of using the new American College of Radiology digital mammography phantom on quality survey in modern digital mammography systems: Evidence from nationwide surveys in Taiwan.
    Hwang YS, Tsai HY, Lin YY, Liao YL.
    Eur J Radiol; 2019 Aug 21; 117():9-14. PubMed ID: 31307658
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.