Literature DB >> 16696475

Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.

Sarah J Boyce1, Ehsan Samei.   

Abstract

Flat panel detectors exhibit improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and display capabilities compared to film. This improvement necessitates a new evaluation of optimal geometry for conventional projection imaging applications such as digital projection mammography as well as for advanced x-ray imaging applications including cone-beam computed tomography (CT), tomosynthesis, and mammotomography. Such an evaluation was undertaken in this study to examine the effects of x-ray source distribution, inherent detector resolution, magnification, scatter rejection, and noise characteristics including noise aliasing. A model for x-ray image acquisition was used to develop generic results applicable to flat panel detectors with similar x-ray absorption characteristics. The model assumed a Gaussian distribution for the focal spot and a rectangular distribution for a pixel. A generic model for the modulated transfer function (MTF) of indirect flat panel detectors was derived by a nonlinear fit of empirical receptor data to the Burgess model for phosphor MTFs. Noise characteristics were investigated using a generic noise power spectrum (NPS) model for indirect phosphor-based detectors. The detective quantum efficiency (DQE) was then calculated from the MTF and NPS models. The results were examined as a function of focal spot size (0.1, 0.3, and 0.6 mm) and pixel size (50, 100, 150, and 200 microm) for magnification ranges 1 to 3. Mammography, general radiography (also applicable to mammotomography), and chest radiography applications were explored using x-ray energies of 28, 74, and 120 kVp, respectively. Nodule detection was examined using the effective point source scatter model, effective DQE, and the Hotelling SNR2 efficiency. Results indicate that magnification can potentially improve the signal and noise performance of digital images. Results also show that a cross over point occurs in the spatial frequency above and below which the effects of magnification differ indicating that there are task dependent tradeoffs associated with magnification. The cross over point varies depending upon focal spot size, pixel size, x-ray energy, and source-to-image-distance (SID). For mammography, the cross over point occurs for a 0.3 mm focal spot while a 0.6 mm focal spot indicates that magnification does not improve image quality due to focal spot blurring. Thus, the benefit of magnification may be limited. For general radiography (as well as mammotomography), and chest radiography, the cross over point changes with SID. For a system with a 0.3 mm focal spot, 100 microm pixel size, a 2 m SID, and the applicable tissue thickness and scatter components, optimal magnification improved SNR2 by approximately 1.2 times for mammography and 1.5 times for general radiography (and mammotomography). These results indicate that the optimal geometry can improve image quality without changing patient dose or otherwise reduce dose without compromising image quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16696475     DOI: 10.1118/1.2174133

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


  10 in total

1.  Preliminary evaluation of biplane correlation (BCI) stereographic imaging for lung nodule detection.

Authors:  Sarah J Boyce; H Page McAdams; Carl E Ravin; Edward F Patz; Lacey Washington; Santiago Martinez; Lynne Koweek; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Effective DQE (eDQE) and speed of digital radiographic systems: an experimental methodology.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Nicole T Ranger; Alistair MacKenzie; Ian D Honey; James T Dobbins; Carl E Ravin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Digital magnification mammography with matched incident exposure: physical imaging properties and detectability of simulated microcalcifications.

Authors:  Nobukazu Tanaka; Kentaro Naka; Hiroko Fukushima; Junji Morishita; Fukai Toyofuku; Masafumi Ohki; Yoshiharu Higashida
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2011-03-18

4.  Implementation of a channelized Hotelling observer model to assess image quality of x-ray angiography systems.

Authors:  Christopher P Favazza; Kenneth A Fetterly; Nicholas J Hangiandreou; Shuai Leng; Beth A Schueler
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-03-25

5.  Systematic analysis of bias and variability of texture measurements in computed tomography.

Authors:  Marthony Robins; Justin Solomon; Jocelyn Hoye; Ehsan Abadi; Daniele Marin; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-07-12

6.  Investigation of optimum anti-scatter grid selection for digital radiography: physical imaging properties and detectability of low-contrast signals.

Authors:  Nobukazu Tanaka; Kentaro Naka; Aya Saito; Junji Morishita; Fukai Toyofuku; Masafumi Ohki; Yoshiharu Higashida
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-08-08

7.  Systematic analysis of bias and variability of morphologic features for lung lesions in computed tomography.

Authors:  Jocelyn Hoye; Justin Solomon; Thomas J Sauer; Marthony Robins; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2019-03-26

8.  Design and Development of a New Multi-Projection X-Ray System for Chest Imaging.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Sarah Boyce; Lacey Washington; H Page McAdams; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2009-02-10       Impact factor: 1.679

9.  Detector or system? Extending the concept of detective quantum efficiency to characterize the performance of digital radiographic imaging systems.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Nicole T Ranger; Alistair MacKenzie; Ian D Honey; James T Dobbins; Carl E Ravin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Influence of the use of various imaging units and projections on the radiation dose received by children during chest digital radiography.

Authors:  Hongrong Xu; Kaiping Huang; Bo Liu; Jinhua Cai; Huan Zheng; Helin Zheng; Qiurui Yang; Changhong Yao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.