Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:2770628rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0006141lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2770628lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0178602lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2770628lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1704922lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2770628lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1280500lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2770628lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0486616lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2770628lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1979874lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:issue4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:dateCreated1989-10-5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:abstractTextWe have studied the effect of breast composition on the average whole breast dose, average glandular dose, and image contrast in mammography, using both computational and experimental methods. Three glandular/adipose compositions were considered: 30/70, 50/50, and 70/30 by weight, for both 3- and 5-cm breast thickness. Absorbed dose was found to increase with greater glandular content and this increase is more pronounced for thick breasts and softer beams. For typical screen-film x-ray beams, the average dose to a highly glandular breast is nearly twice the dose to a highly adipose breast and the average glandular dose about 40% higher. Dose was reduced when higher energy beams were employed. The use of a grid increased the dose by a factor of 2.0 to 2.6. Finally, the measured image contrast decreases with increasing breast glandularity, to a greater extent in small breasts and when low energy beams were employed.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:issn0094-2405lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FatourosP PPPlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SkubicS ESElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:volume16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:pagination544-52lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:dateRevised2004-11-17lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2770628-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2770628-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2770628-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2770628-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2770628-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2770628-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2770628-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:articleTitleThe effect of breast composition on absorbed dose and image contrast.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44109.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2770628pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed