Literature DB >> 12722813

An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems.

Ehsan Samei1, Michael J Flynn.   

Abstract

Current flat-panel detectors either directly convert x-ray energy to electronic charge or use indirect conversion with an intermediate optical process. The purpose of this work was to compare direct and indirect detectors in terms of their modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and detective quantum efficiency (DQE). Measurements were made on three flat-panel detectors, Hologic Direct-Ray DR-1000 (DRC), GE Revolution XQ/i (XQ/i), and Philips Digital Diagnost (DiDi) using the IEC-defined RQA5 (approximately 74 kVp, 21 mm Al) and RQA9 (approximately 120 kVp, 40 mm Al) radiographic techniques. The presampled MTFs of the systems were measured using an edge method [Samei et al., Med. Phys. 25, 102 (1998)]. The NPS of the systems were determined for a range of exposure levels by two-dimensional (2D) Fourier analysis of uniformly exposed radiographs [Flynn and Samei, Med. Phys. 26, 1612 (1999)]. The DQEs were assessed from the measured MTF, NPS, exposure, and estimated ideal signal-to-noise ratios. For the direct system, the MTF was found to be significantly higher than that for the indirect systems and very close to an ideal function associated with the detector pixel size. The NPS for the direct system was found to be constant in relation to frequency. For the XQ/i and DRC systems, the DQE results reflected expected differences based on the absorption efficiency of the different detector materials. Using RQA5, the measured DQE values in the diagonal (and axial) direction(s) at spatial frequencies of 0.15 mm(-1) and 2.5 mm(-1) were 64% (64%) and 20% (15%) for the XQ/i system, and 38% (38%) and 20% (20%) for the DRC, respectively. The DQE results of the DiDi system were difficult to interpret due to additional preprocessing steps in that system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12722813     DOI: 10.1118/1.1561285

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


  41 in total

1.  Solid-state fluoroscopic imager for high-resolution angiography: parallel-cascaded linear systems analysis.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Sankararaman Suryanarayanan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Solid-state fluoroscopic imager for high-resolution angiography: physical characteristics of an 8 cm x 8 cm experimental prototype.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Steven K Onishi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The noise power spectrum in CT with direct fan beam reconstruction.

Authors:  Jongduk Baek; Norbert J Pelc
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges.

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

5.  Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice.

Authors:  Wouter J H Veldkamp; Lucia J M Kroft; Mireille V Boot; Bart J A Mertens; Jacob Geleijns
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-31       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Assessment of detective quantum efficiency: intercomparison of a recently introduced international standard with prior methods.

Authors:  Nicole T Ranger; Ehsan Samei; James T Dobbins; Carl E Ravin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Investigation of the signal behavior at diagnostic energies of prototype, direct detection, active matrix, flat-panel imagers incorporating polycrystalline HgI2.

Authors:  Hong Du; Larry E Antonuk; Youcef El-Mohri; Qihua Zhao; Zhong Su; Jin Yamamoto; Yi Wang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Reduction of radiation dose for cerebral angiography using flat panel detector of direct conversion type: a vascular phantom study.

Authors:  Y Hatakeyama; S Kakeda; N Ohnari; J Moriya; N Oda; K Nishino; W Miyamoto; Y Korogi
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 9.  [Balance of required dose and image quality in digital radiography].

Authors:  M Uffmann; C Schaefer-Prokop; U Neitzel
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 0.635

10.  A hand-held beta imaging probe for FDG.

Authors:  Bipin Singh; Brendan C Stack; Samta Thacker; Valeriy Gaysinskiy; Twyla Bartel; Val Lowe; Steven Cool; Gerald Entine; Vivek Nagarkar
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 2.668

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.