Literature DB >> 11318318

Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems.

E Samei1, J A Seibert, C E Willis, M J Flynn, E Mah, K L Junck.   

Abstract

Recommended methods to test the performance of computed radiography (CR) digital radiographic systems have been recently developed by the AAPM Task Group No. 10. Included are tests for dark noise, uniformity, exposure response, laser beam function, spatial resolution, low-contrast resolution, spatial accuracy, erasure thoroughness, and throughput. The recommendations may be used for acceptance testing of new CR devices as well as routine performance evaluation checks of devices in clinical use. The purpose of this short communication is to provide a tabular summary of the tests recommended by the AAPM Task Group, delineate the technical aspects of the tests, suggest quantitative measures of the performance results, and recommend uniform quantitative criteria for the satisfactory performance of CR devices. The applicability of the acceptance criteria is verified by tests performed on CR systems in clinical use at five different institutions. This paper further clarifies the recommendations with respect to the beam filtration to be used for exposure calibration of the system, and the calibration of automatic exposure control systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11318318     DOI: 10.1118/1.1350586

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  8 in total

Review 1.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges.

Authors:  A Noel; F Thibault
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-10-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Recognition and prevention of computed radiography image artifacts.

Authors:  Kevin Hammerstrom; John Aldrich; Len Alves; Andrew Ho
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (executive summary).

Authors:  S Jeff Shepard; Jihong Wang; Michael Flynn; Eric Gingold; Lee Goldman; Kerry Krugh; David L Leong; Eugene Mah; Kent Ogden; Donald Peck; Ehsan Samei; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Practical guidelines for radiographers to improve computed radiography image quality.

Authors:  N Pongnapang
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2005-10-01

5.  Effect of beam quality and readout direction in the edge profile on the modulation transfer function of photostimulable phosphor systems via the edge method.

Authors:  Shinya Takarabe; Taku Kuramoto; Yusuke Shibayama; Hiroki Tsuru; Masato Tatsumi; Toyoyuki Kato; Kazutoshi Okamura; Kazunori Yoshiura
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2021-07-20

6.  Evaluation of digital radiography practice using exposure index tracking.

Authors:  Alexander W Scott; Yifang Zhou; Janet Allahverdian; Jessica L Nute; Christina Lee
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom.

Authors:  Z F Lu; E L Nickoloff; J C So; A K Dutta
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Method for automatic detection of defective ultrasound linear array transducers based on uniformity assessment of clinical images - A case study.

Authors:  Robert Lorentsson; Nasser Hosseini; Jan-Olof Johansson; Wiebke Rosenberg; Benny Stenborg; Lars Gunnar Månsson; Magnus Båth
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 2.102

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.