Literature DB >> 28339107

Studies of signal estimation bias in grating-based x-ray multicontrast imaging.

Xu Ji1, Yongshuai Ge1, Ran Zhang1, Ke Li1,2, Guang-Hong Chen1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In grating-based x-ray multi-contrast imaging, signals of three contrast mechanisms-absorption contrast, differential phase contrast (DPC), and dark-field contrast-can be estimated from the same set of acquired data. The estimated signals, N0 (related to absorption), N1 (related to dark-field), and φ (related to DPC) may be intrinsically biased. However, it is yet unclear how large these biases are and how the data acquisition parameters affect the biases in the extracted signals. The purpose of this paper was to address these questions.
METHODS: The biases of the extracted signals (i.e., N0 , N1 and φ) were theoretically studied for a well-known signal estimation method. Experimental data acquired from a grating-based x-ray multi-contrast benchtop imaging system with a photon counting detector were used to validate the theoretical results for the signal biases of the three contrast mechanisms.
RESULTS: Both theoretical and experimental studies showed the following results: (1) The bias of signal estimation for the absorption contrast signal is zero; (2) The bias of signal estimation for N1 is inversely proportional to the number of phase steps and to the average fringe visibility of the grating interferometer, but the ratio between the bias and the signal level (i.e., the relative bias) is independent of the number of phase steps; (3) The bias of signal estimation for φ depends on the mean DPC signal level, the total exposure level of the multi-contrast data acquisition, and the mean fringe visibility of the interferometer.
CONCLUSIONS: In grating-based x-ray multi-contrast imaging, the estimated absorption contrast signal is unbiased; the estimated dark-field contrast signal is biased, but the relative bias is only dependent on the mean fringe visibility of the interferometer and the exposure level. The estimated DPC signal may be biased, and the bias level depends on the mean signal level, the exposure level, and the interferometer performance.
© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  signal bias; x-ray dark-field contrast imaging; x-ray imaging; x-ray phase-contrast imaging

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28339107      PMCID: PMC6261444          DOI: 10.1002/mp.12235

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


  23 in total

1.  Multicontrast x-ray computed tomography imaging using Talbot-Lau interferometry without phase stepping.

Authors:  Nicholas Bevins; Joseph Zambelli; Ke Li; Zhihua Qi; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Experimental results from a preclinical X-ray phase-contrast CT scanner.

Authors:  Arne Tapfer; Martin Bech; Astrid Velroyen; Jan Meiser; Jürgen Mohr; Marco Walter; Joachim Schulz; Bart Pauwels; Peter Bruyndonckx; Xuan Liu; Alexander Sasov; Franz Pfeiffer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Analytical evaluation of the signal and noise propagation in x-ray differential phase-contrast computed tomography.

Authors:  Rainer Raupach; Thomas G Flohr
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Characterization of imaging performance in differential phase contrast CT compared with the conventional CT--noise power spectrum NPS(k).

Authors:  Xiangyang Tang; Yi Yang; Shaojie Tang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Fundamental relationship between the noise properties of grating-based differential phase contrast CT and absorption CT: theoretical framework using a cascaded system model and experimental validation.

Authors:  Ke Li; Nicholas Bevins; Joseph Zambelli; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Talbot phase-contrast x-ray imaging for the small joints of the hand.

Authors:  Dan Stutman; Thomas J Beck; John A Carrino; Clifton O Bingham
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Anatomical background noise power spectrum in differential phase contrast and dark field contrast mammograms.

Authors:  John Garrett; Yongshuai Ge; Ke Li; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Enhancing Tabletop X-Ray Phase Contrast Imaging with Nano-Fabrication.

Authors:  Houxun Miao; Andrew A Gomella; Katherine J Harmon; Eric E Bennett; Nicholas Chedid; Sami Znati; Alireza Panna; Barbara A Foster; Priya Bhandarkar; Han Wen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  A Universal Moiré Effect and Application in X-Ray Phase-Contrast Imaging.

Authors:  Houxun Miao; Alireza Panna; Andrew A Gomella; Eric E Bennett; Sami Znati; Lei Chen; Han Wen
Journal:  Nat Phys       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 20.034

10.  Experimental Realisation of High-sensitivity Laboratory X-ray Grating-based Phase-contrast Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Lorenz Birnbacher; Marian Willner; Astrid Velroyen; Mathias Marschner; Alexander Hipp; Jan Meiser; Frieder Koch; Tobias Schröter; Danays Kunka; Jürgen Mohr; Franz Pfeiffer; Julia Herzen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  2 in total

1.  Impact of the sensitivity factor on the signal-to-noise ratio in grating-based phase contrast imaging.

Authors:  Xu Ji; Ran Zhang; Ke Li; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2019-03-01

2.  Dual Energy Differential Phase Contrast CT (DE-DPC-CT) Imaging.

Authors:  Xu Ji; Ran Zhang; Ke Li; Guang-Hong Chen
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 10.048

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.