1980
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.134.4.741
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mammography at reduced doses: present performance and future possibilities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparison of our estimated values of glandular tissue dose from mammography over time with those described by other investigators for the same time-periods for women with 5 cm CBT demonstrates consistencies for periods following 1970 (12,85,86,87 quoting 58) but several reported glandular tissue dose estimates for periods before 1970 (12,86,87 quoting 58) were higher than our estimates of the average value of mean glandular dose (but were included within our upper bound). It is difficult to determine reasons for this difference, particularly because most publications of earlier doses lacked detailed documentation of the basis of their estimates (12,86) and did not quantitatively derive dose estimates over the range of CBT as done in our analysis.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Comparison of our estimated values of glandular tissue dose from mammography over time with those described by other investigators for the same time-periods for women with 5 cm CBT demonstrates consistencies for periods following 1970 (12,85,86,87 quoting 58) but several reported glandular tissue dose estimates for periods before 1970 (12,86,87 quoting 58) were higher than our estimates of the average value of mean glandular dose (but were included within our upper bound). It is difficult to determine reasons for this difference, particularly because most publications of earlier doses lacked detailed documentation of the basis of their estimates (12,86) and did not quantitatively derive dose estimates over the range of CBT as done in our analysis.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…It is difficult to determine reasons for this difference, particularly because most publications of earlier doses lacked detailed documentation of the basis of their estimates (12,86) and did not quantitatively derive dose estimates over the range of CBT as done in our analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…A calculated primary spectrum for the reference system as well as reference conditions are discussed in [23]. Following [24], a reference system employing a microfocus tube with a tungsten target, 0.25 mm Al inherent filtration, and 0.25 mm Al added filtration was selected. The maximum tube potential was assumed to be 25 kVp with a focal spot aperture of 0.0177 mm2.…”
Section: Reference Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%