Purpose To assess and compare the radiation dose and image quality of the low dose 2D/3D EOS slot scanner (LDSS) to conventional digital radiography (DR) X-ray imaging systems for chest and knee examination protocols. Methods and materials The effective doses (ED) to the patient in the chest and knee clinical examination protocols for LDSS and DR X-ray imaging systems were determined using the dose area product and PCXMC Monte Carlo simulation software. The CDRAD phantom was imaged with 19 cm, and 13 cm thick Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) blocks to simulate the chest and knees respectively of a patient of average adult size. The contrast detail resolution was calculated using image analysis software. Results The EDs for the LDSS default setting were up to 69% and 51% lower than for the DR systems for the chest (speed 4) and knee (speed 6) protocols, respectively, while for the increased dose level setting then the EDs were up to 42% and 35% lower than for the DR systems for the chest (speed 6) and knee (speed 8) protocols respectively. At the default setting, the contrast detail was lowest for the default setting of the 2D/3D low dose slot scanner (LDSS) for both chest and knee examinations, but at the highest dose levels then the threshold were equal or higher than the contrast resolution of DR imaging systems. Conclusion The LDSS has the potential to be used for clinical diagnosis of chest and knee examinations using the higher dose level. For speed 6 in chest protocol and speed 8 in knee protocol, the measured contrast detail resolution was comparable with the DR systems but at a lower effective dose.

The aim of this study was to determine the quantitative image quality metrics of the low-dose 2D/3D EOS slot scanner X-ray imaging system (LDSS) compared with conventional digital radiography (DR) X-ray imaging systems. The effective detective quantum efficiency (eDQE) and effective noise quantum equivalent (eNEQ) were measured using chest and knee protocols. Methods: A Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends (NEXT) of a chest adult phantom and a PolyMethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom were used for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. Quantitative image quality metrics, including effective normalised noise power spectrum (eNNPS), effective modulation transfer function (eMTF), eDQE and eNEQ of the LDSS and DR imaging systems were assessed and compared. Results: In the chest acquisition, the LDSS imaging system achieved significantly higher eNEQ and eDQE than the DR imaging systems at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.001 > p ≤ 0.044). For the knee acquisition, the LDSS imaging system also achieved significantly higher eNEQ and eDQE than the DR imaging systems at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.001 > p ≤ 0.002). However, there was no significant difference in eNEQ and eDQE between DR systems 1 and 2 at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.10 < p < 1.00) for either chest or knee protocols. Conclusion: The LDSS imaging system performed well compared to the DR systems. Thus, we have demonstrated that the LDSS imaging system has the potential to be used for clinical diagnostic purposes.

The purpose of this study was to assess the image quality of the low dose 2D/3D slot scanner (LDSS) imaging system compared to conventional digital radiography (DR) imaging systems. Visual image quality was assessed using the visual grading analysis (VGA) method. This method is a subjective approach that uses a human observer to evaluate and optimise radiographic images for different imaging technologies. Methods and materials: ten posterior-anterior (PA) and ten lateral (LAT) images of a chest anthropomorphic phantoms and a knee phantom were acquired by an LDSS imaging system and two conventional DR imaging systems. The images were shown in random order to three (chest) radiologists and three experienced (knee) radiographers, who scored the images against a number of criteria. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa and weighted kappa. Results: the statistical comparison of the agreement between the observers showed good interobserver agreement, with Fleiss’ kappa coefficients of 0.27–0.63 and 0.23–0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. Comparison of intraobserver agreement also showed good agreement with weighted kappa coefficients of 0.27–0.63 and 0.23–0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. The LDSS imaging system achieved significantly higher VGA image quality compared to the DR imaging systems in the AP and LAT chest protocols (p < 0.001). However, the LDSS imaging system achieved lower image quality than one DR system (p ≤ 0.016) and equivalent image quality to the other DR systems (p ≤ 0.27) in the knee protocol. The LDSS imaging system achieved effective dose savings of 33–52% for the chest protocol and 30–35% for the knee protocol compared with DR systems. Conclusions: this work has shown that the LDSS imaging system has the potential to acquire chest and knee images at diagnostic quality and at a lower effective dose than DR systems.