Literature DB >> 16752580

Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function.

Ehsan Samei1, Nicole T Ranger, James T Dobbins, Ying Chen.   

Abstract

The modulation transfer function (MTF) and the noise power spectrum (NPS) are widely recognized as the most relevant metrics of resolution and noise performance in radiographic imaging. These quantities have commonly been measured using various techniques, the specifics of which can have a bearing on the accuracy of the results. As a part of a study aimed at comparing the relative performance of different techniques, in this paper we report on a comparison of two established MTF measurement techniques: one using a slit test device [Dobbins et al., Med. Phys. 22, 1581-1593 (1995)] and another using a translucent edge test device [Samei et al., Med. Phys. 25, 102-113 (1998)], with one another and with a third technique using an opaque edge test device recommended by a new international standard (IEC 62220-1, 2003). The study further aimed to substantiate the influence of various acquisition and processing parameters on the estimated MTF. The slit test device was made of 2 mm thick Pb slabs with a 12.5 microm opening. The translucent edge test device was made of a laminated and polished Pt(0.9)Ir(0.1). alloy foil of 0.1 mm thickness. The opaque edge test device was made of a 2 mm thick W slab. All test devices were imaged on a representative indirect flat-panel digital radiographic system using three published beam qualities: 70 kV with 0.5 mm Cu filtration, 70 kV with 19 mm Al filtration, and 74 kV with 21 mm Al filtration (IEC-RQA5). The latter technique was also evaluated in conjunction with two external beam-limiting apertures (per IEC 62220-1), and with the tube collimator limiting the beam to the same area achieved with the apertures. The presampled MTFs were deduced from the acquired images by Fourier analysis techniques, and the results analyzed for relative values and the influence of impacting parameters. The findings indicated that the measurement technique has a notable impact on the resulting MTF estimate, with estimates from the overall IEC method 4.0% +/- 0.2% lower than that of Dobbins et al. and 0.7% +/- 0.4% higher than that of Samei et al. averaged over the zero to cutoff frequency range. Over the same frequency range, keeping beam quality and limitation constant, the average MTF estimate obtained with the edge techniques differed by up to 5.2% +/- 0.2% from that of the slit, with the opaque edge providing lower MTF estimates at lower frequencies than those obtained with the translucent edge or slit. The beam quality impacted the average estimated MTF by as much as 3.7% +/- 0.9% while the use of beam limiting devices alone increased the average estimated MTF by as much as 7.0% +/- 0.9%. While the slit method is inherently very sensitive to misalignment, both edge techniques were found to tolerate misalignments by as much as 6 cm. The results suggest the use of the opaque edge test device and the tube internal collimator for beam limitation in order to achieve an MTF result most reflective of the overall performance of the imaging system and least susceptible to misalignment and scattered radiation. Careful attention to influencing factors is warranted to achieve accurate results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16752580     DOI: 10.1118/1.2188816

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


  22 in total

1.  A method for the determination of the two-dimensional MTF of digital radiography systems using only the noise response.

Authors:  Andrew Kuhls-Gilcrist; Daniel R Bednarek; Stephen Rudin
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2010-03-23

2.  Modeling and measurement of the detector presampling MTF of a variable resolution x-ray CT scanner.

Authors:  Roman Melnyk; Frank A DiBianca
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  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

4.  Evaluation of a new photon-counting imaging detector (PCD) with various acquisition modes.

Authors:  A Shankar; J Krebs; D R Bednarek; S Rudin
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2018-03-09

5.  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

6.  Accurate MTF measurement in digital radiography using noise response.

Authors:  Andrew Kuhls-Gilcrist; Amit Jain; Daniel R Bednarek; Kenneth R Hoffmann; Stephen Rudin
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Measuring the presampled MTF from a reduced number of flat-field images using the Noise Response (NR) method.

Authors:  Andrew Kuhls-Gilcrist; Amit Jain; Daniel R Bednarek; Stephen Rudin
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2011-03-01

8.  Application of a variable filter for presampled modulation transfer function analysis with the edge method.

Authors:  Ryo Higashide; Katsuhiro Ichikawa; Hiroshi Kunitomo; Kazuya Ohashi
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2015-06-19

9.  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

10.  Impact of flat panel-imager veiling glare on scatter-estimation accuracy and image quality of a commercial on-board cone-beam CT imaging system.

Authors:  Dimitrios Lazos; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.