Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Absorbed radiation dose in mammography

G R Hammerstein, D W Miller, D R White

    Radiology
    |February 1, 1979
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Johnson Noise <i>Thermometry</i>.

    Measurement science & technology·2024
    Same author

    The Boltzmann project.

    Metrologia·2019
    Same author

    The kelvin redefinition and its mise en pratique.

    Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences·2016
    Same author

    Search for a Heavy Neutral Particle Decaying to eμ, eτ, or μτ in pp Collisions at sqrt[s]=8  TeV with the ATLAS Detector.

    Physical review letters·2015
    Same author

    Evidence of Wγγ Production in pp Collisions at sqrt[s]=8  TeV and Limits on Anomalous Quartic Gauge Couplings with the ATLAS Detector.

    Physical review letters·2015
    Same author

    Measurement of the top quark mass in the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] channels using [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] ATLAS data.

    The European physical journal. C, Particles and fields·2015
    Same journal

    Erratum for: Prediction of Lobar Emphysema Progression with a CT-Based Foundational Model.

    Radiology·2026
    Same journal

    Erratum for: Associations of MRI-derived Paraspinal IMAT and LMM with Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: Results from a German Cohort.

    Radiology·2026
    Same journal

    Erratum for: Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome.

    Radiology·2026
    Same journal

    Redefining the Clinical Role of MRI in Endometrial Cancer Staging.

    Radiology·2026
    Same journal

    To Ablate or Not to Ablate: The Colorectal Liver Metastasis Question.

    Radiology·2026
    Same journal

    The Limits of Radiologic Categorization in Pulmonary Nonsolid Nodules.

    Radiology·2026
    See all related articles

    Mammography radiation dose is lower than previously estimated. Modern techniques significantly reduce patient exposure, enhancing safety in breast cancer screening.

    Area of Science:

    • Medical Physics
    • Radiology
    • Biomedical Engineering

    Background:

    • Mammography is a key breast cancer screening tool.
    • Accurate estimation of radiation dose is crucial for patient safety.
    • Previous dose estimates may not reflect current technological advancements.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To determine mammography radiation dose based on exposure, beam quality, and depth.
    • To compare current doses with historical estimates.
    • To evaluate dose reduction achieved by modern mammographic techniques.

    Main Methods:

    • Thermoluminescent dosimetry used to measure relative exposure versus depth in tissue-substitute materials.
    • Calculation of f-factors using elemental compositions of mastectomy specimens.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of data from the American College of Surgeons/National Cancer Institute (ACS/NCI) Screening Centers.

    • Main Results:

    • Radiation dose at depth is influenced by beam quality, exposure, and tissue composition.
    • Current average midbreast doses are substantially lower than previously estimated.
    • Film/screen mammography doses are 25 times lower, and Xerox doses are 3 times lower than the prior 2 rad estimate.

    Conclusions:

    • Modern mammography techniques deliver significantly reduced radiation doses.
    • The findings support the safety and efficacy of current screening mammography practices.
    • Further discussion on quantitative risk indicators beyond midbreast dose is warranted.