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

256 related items for PubMed ID: 24557600

  • 1. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
    Sommer A, Schopphoven S, Land I, Blaser D, Sobczak T, Deutsche Referenzzentren für Mammographie Version 2.0.
    Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme.
    Monnin P, Bochud FO, Verdun FR.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 May; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
    Jakubiak RR, Gamba HR, Neves EB, Peixoto JE.
    Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep 21; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
    Ivanovic S, Bosmans H, Mijovic S.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul 21; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 9. Experience with the European quality assurance guidelines for digital mammography systems in a national screening programme.
    McCullagh J, Keavey E, Egan G, Phelan N.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb 21; 153(2):223-6. PubMed ID: 23173219
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 11. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
    Weigel S, Girnus R, Czwoydzinski J, Decker T, Spital S, Heindel W.
    Rofo; 2007 Sep 21; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 14. Digital mammography image quality: image display.
    Siegel E, Krupinski E, Samei E, Flynn M, Andriole K, Erickson B, Thomas J, Badano A, Seibert JA, Pisano ED.
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug 21; 3(8):615-27. PubMed ID: 17412136
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. [Comparison of two automatic evaluation methods on Images of the CDMAM test phantom].
    Blendl C, Loos C, Eiben B.
    Rofo; 2009 Jul 21; 181(7):637-43. PubMed ID: 19513964
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose.
    Ng KH, Jamal N, DeWerd L.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006 Jul 21; 121(4):445-51. PubMed ID: 16709704
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems: first experiences within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
    Thierens H, Bosmans H, Buls N, Bacher K, De Hauwere A, Jacobs J, Clerinx P.
    JBR-BTR; 2007 Jul 21; 90(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 17696080
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D.
    Rofo; 2012 Oct 21; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
    [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 13.