Literature DB >> 12906189

On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography.

Giovanni Borasi1, Andrea Nitrosi, Paolo Ferrari, Davide Tassoni.   

Abstract

During a tender we evaluated the image performance of three commercially available active matrix flat panel imagers (AMFPI) for general radiography, one based on direct detection method (Se photoconductor) the other two on indirect detection method (CsI phosphor). Basic image quality parameters (MTF, NNPS, DQE) were evaluated with particular attention to dose and energy dependence. As it is known, presampling modulation transfer function (MTF) of selenium based detector is very high (at 70 kV, 2 cycles/mm, 2.5 microGy, about 0.80). Indirect detection panels exhibit a comparable (lower) resolution (at 70 kV, 2 cycles/mm, 2.5 microGy, MTF is about 0.34 for both the systems analyzed) and a more pronounced energy and dose dependence could also be noted in one of them. As a consequence of the very high resolution, the normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS) of the direct system is substantially flat, very similar to a white noise. Considering that the sensitive layer of all detectors is the same (0.5 mm), the relatively higher NNPS values are related to selenium absorption properties (lower Z respect to CsI:Tl) and detector inherent noise. NNPSs of the other systems, at low frequencies, are comparable but the frequency dependence is significantly different. At 70 kV, 2.5 microGy, 0.5 cycles/mm detective quantum efficiency (DQE) is about 0.35 for the direct detection system, and about the same (0.6) for the indirect ones. The combined effect of additive and multiplicative noise components makes DQE dependence on dose not monotonic. DQE present a maximum for an intermediate exposure. This complex behavior may be useful to characterize the systems in terms of the monodimensional integral over the frequency of DQE (IDQE). Both visual contrast-detail experiment and the direct evaluation of the signal-to-noise ratio confirmed, at least in a qualitative way, the system performances predicted by IDQE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12906189     DOI: 10.1118/1.1569273

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


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  A practical exposure-equivalent metric for instrumentation noise in x-ray imaging systems.

Authors:  G K Yadava; A T Kuhls-Gilcrist; S Rudin; V K Patel; K R Hoffmann; D R Bednarek
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-08-22       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 3.  Application of QC_DR software for acceptance testing and routine quality control of direct digital radiography systems: initial experiences using the Italian Association of Physicist in Medicine quality control protocol.

Authors:  Andrea Nitrosi; Marco Bertolini; Giovanni Borasi; Andrea Botti; Adriana Barani; Stefano Rivetti; Luisa Pierotti
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Investigation of noise sources for digital radiography systems.

Authors:  Lutfi Ergun; Turan Olgar
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2016-10-01

5.  Optimization of image quality and patient dose in radiographs of paediatric extremities using direct digital radiography.

Authors:  A Jones; C Ansell; C Jerrom; I D Honey
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Basic imaging properties of an indirect flat-panel detector system employing irradiation side sampling (ISS) technology for chest radiography: comparison with a computed radiographic system.

Authors:  Nobukazu Tanaka; Yuki Yano; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Tsutomu Akasaka; Masayuki Sasaki; Masafumi Ohki; Junji Morishita
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-11-10

7.  Optimization of dual-energy subtraction chest radiography by use of a direct-conversion flat-panel detector system.

Authors:  Mari Fukao; Kiyosumi Kawamoto; Hiroaki Matsuzawa; Osamu Honda; Takeshi Iwaki; Tsukasa Doi
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-08-15

8.  Contrast detail phantom comparison on a commercially available unit. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Authors:  Marco Bertolini; Andrea Nitrosi; Giovanni Borasi; Andrea Botti; Davide Tassoni; Roberto Sghedoni; Giulio Zuccoli
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Imaging and Dosimetric Study on Direct Flat-Panel Detector-Based Digital Mammography System.

Authors:  Reena Sharma; S D Sharma; P S Sarkar; D Datta
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

10.  Figure of image quality and information capacity in digital mammography.

Authors:  Christos M Michail; Nektarios E Kalyvas; Ioannis G Valais; Ioannis P Fudos; George P Fountos; Nikos Dimitropoulos; Grigorios Koulouras; Dionisis Kandris; Maria Samarakou; Ioannis S Kandarakis
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.411

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.