Literature DB >> 16964878

Lag and ghosting in a clinical flat-panel selenium digital mammography system.

Aili K Bloomquist1, Martin J Yaffe, Gordon E Mawdsley, David M Hunter, Daniel J Beideck.   

Abstract

We present measurements of lag and ghosting in a FDA-approved digital mammography system that uses a dielectric/selenium based detector structure. Lag is the carryover of signal from a previous image, whereas ghosting is the reduction of sensitivity caused by previous exposure history of the detector. Data from six selenium units were acquired. For the type of selenium detector tested, and under typical clinical usage conditions, the lag was as high as 0.15% of source signal and the ghosting could be as high as 15%. The amount of lag and ghosting varied from unit to unit. Results were compared with data acquired on a phosphor-based full-field digital mammography system. Modifications in the technology of the selenium detectors appear to have resulted in a marked decrease in both lag and ghosting effects in more recent systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16964878     DOI: 10.1118/1.2218315

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Flat-detector computed tomography (FD-CT).

Authors:  Willi A Kalender; Yiannis Kyriakou
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-06-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  [Workflow in digital screening mammography].

Authors:  U Bick; F Diekmann; E M Fallenberg
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Oblique reconstructions in tomosynthesis. II. Super-resolution.

Authors:  Raymond J Acciavatti; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  [Basic principles of flat detector computed tomography (FD-CT)].

Authors:  Y Kyriakou; T Struffert; A Dörfler; W A Kalender
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  A comparative analysis of OTF, NPS, and DQE in energy integrating and photon counting digital x-ray detectors.

Authors:  Raymond J Acciavatti; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Quantification of breast density with dual energy mammography: an experimental feasibility study.

Authors:  Justin L Ducote; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Observation of super-resolution in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Raymond J Acciavatti; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Endovascular image-guided interventions (EIGIs).

Authors:  Stephen Rudin; Daniel R Bednarek; Kenneth R Hoffmann
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.