Literature DB >> 9015806

X-ray detectors for digital radiography.

M J Yaffe1, J A Rowlands.   

Abstract

Digital radiography offers the potential of improved image quality as well as providing opportunities for advances in medical image management, computer-aided diagnosis and teleradiology. Image quality is intimately linked to the precise and accurate acquisition of information from the x-ray beam transmitted by the patient, i.e. to the performance of the x-ray detector. Detectors for digital radiography must meet the needs of the specific radiological procedure where they will be used. Key parameters are spatial resolution, uniformity of response, contrast sensitivity, dynamic range, acquisition speed and frame rate. The underlying physical considerations defining the performance of x-ray detectors for radiography will be reviewed. Some of the more promising existing and experimental detector technologies which may be suitable for digital radiography will be considered. Devices that can be employed in full-area detectors and also those more appropriate for scanning x-ray systems will be discussed. These include various approaches based on phosphor x-ray converters, where light quanta are produced as an intermediate stage, as well as direct x-ray-to-charge conversion materials such as zinc cadmium telluride, amorphous selenium and crystalline silicon.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9015806     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  36 in total

Review 1.  High resolution X-ray computed tomography: an emerging tool for small animal cancer research.

Authors:  M J Paulus; S S Gleason; S J Kennel; P R Hunsicker; D K Johnson
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2000 Jan-Apr       Impact factor: 5.715

2.  Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography.

Authors:  Silvia Obenauer; Klaus-Peter Hermann; Katharina Marten; Susanne Luftner-Nagel; Dorit von Heyden; Per Skaane; Eckhardt Grabbe
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-01-30       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 3.  Digital detectors for mammography: the technical challenges.

Authors:  A Noel; F Thibault
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-10-08       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Reducing dose in urography while maintaining image quality-a comparison of storage phosphor plates and a flat-panel detector.

Authors:  Margareta Jansson; Håkan Geijer; Jan Persliden; Torbjörn Andersson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-04-27       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Comparison of two detector systems for cone beam CT small animal imaging - a preliminary study.

Authors:  Yang Meng; Chris C Shaw; Xinming Liu; Mustafa C Altunbas; Tianpeng Wang; Lingyun Chen; Shu-Ju Tu; S Cheenu Kappadath; Chao-Jen Lai
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2006-03-02

6.  Comparison of slot scanning digital mammography system with full-field digital mammography system.

Authors:  Chao-Jen Lai; Chris C Shaw; William Geiser; Lingyun Chen; Elsa Arribas; Tanya Stephens; Paul L Davis; Geetha P Ayyar; Basak E Dogan; Victoria A Nguyen; Gary J Whitman; Wei T Yang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  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

8.  The x-ray light valve: a low-cost, digital radiographic imaging system--spatial resolution.

Authors:  Robert D MacDougall; Ivaylo Koprinarov; J A Rowlands
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  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

Review 10.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

Authors:  Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.