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

330 related items for PubMed ID: 8527751

  • 1. [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]

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

  • 3. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
    Engelken FJ, Meyer H, Juran R, Bick U, Fallenberg E, Diekmann F.
    Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
    Chida K, Zuguchi M, Sai M, Saito H, Yamada T, Ishibashi T, Ito D, Kimoto N, Kohzuki M, Takahashi S.
    Clin Imaging; 2005 Oct; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. Breast calcification and mass detection with mammographic anode-filter combinations of molybdenum, tungsten, and rhodium.
    Kimme-Smith CM, Sayre JW, McCombs MM, DeBruhl ND, Bassett LW.
    Radiology; 1997 Jun; 203(3):679-83. PubMed ID: 9169688
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
    Thilander-Klang AC, Ackerholm PH, Berlin IC, Bjurstam NG, Mattsson SL, Månsson LG, von Schéele C, Thunberg SJ.
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
    [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.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Experimental investigation on the choice of the tungsten/rhodium anode/filter combination for an amorphous selenium-based digital mammography system.
    Toroi P, Zanca F, Young KC, van Ongeval C, Marchal G, Bosmans H.
    Eur Radiol; 2007 Sep; 17(9):2368-75. PubMed ID: 17268798
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson GA.
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No 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. 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; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 17.