Fluke Biomedical 18-222 - Manual (Page 16)

2-8
2.2 References
1. American Cancer Society, CA32: 226-230, 1982.
2. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report #985. March 86.
3. Stanton L. Villafana, Day, Lightfoot. Dosage Evaluation in Mammography. RADIOLOGY 50:577-584, 1984.
4. Johns HE, Cunningham Jr. THE PHYSICS OF RADIOLOGY. 4th Edition.
5. McCrohon JL, Thompson WE, Butler PF, Goldstein HA, Phillips PR, Jane RG. Mammographic Phantom
Evaluation Project. HHS Publication. 83: 8213. 1983.
6. Fatouros PF, Skubic S. The Development and Use of Realistically-shaped, Tissue Equivalent Phantom for
Assessing the Mammographic Process, RADIOLOGY 157P:32. 1985.
7. Fatouros PF. Resolution and Noise in Xeromammography. MEDICAL PHYSICS 9:819-829
8. Fatouros PF, Goodman H, Rao G, Beachley M, Janis S, Bourland P. Absorbed Dose and Image Quality in
Xeromammography. Proceedings SPIE. Vol 419. 1983.
9. White DR, Tucker A. Test Object for Assessing Image Quality in Mammography. BJR 53:331-335. 1980.
10. Hessler C, Depeusinge C, Greceescu M, et al. Objective Assessment of Mammography Systems, part I: Method.
Radiology 156:215-219. 1985
11. Hammerstein R, Miller D, White D, et al. Absorbed Dose in Mammography. RADIOLOGY 156:215-219. 1985
12. Skubic S. An Investigation of the Relationship Between Image Quality and Breast Dose in Xeromammography.
Dissertation, Medical College of Virginia. May 1986.
13. Skubic S, Fatouros PF. The Dependence of Absorbed Breast Dose on X-Ray Modality, X-Ray Technique, and
Breast Thickness. RADIOLOGY 161:263-270. 1986.
14. Fewell, Shuping. Handbook of Mammographic Spectra. FDA Publication.
15. Skubic SE, Fatouros PP, Goodman H. The Effect of Breast Composition on Absorbed Dose and Image Contrast
in Publication.
16. Hubbell JH. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL RADIATION ISOT Vol. 33:1269-1290. 1982.
17. American College of Radiology Guidelines on Mammographic Screening.