2023
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acb2aa
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A practical and robust method for beam blocker-based cone beam CT scatter correction

Abstract: Objective. In the traditional beam-blocker based cone beam CT (CBCT) scatter correction, the scatter measured in the region shaded by lead strips was multiplied by a correction factor to directly represent the scatter in the unblocked region. The correction factor optimization is a tedious process and lacks objective stop criterion. To skip the optimization process, an indirect scatter estimation method was developed and validated in phantom imaging. Approach. A beam-blocker made of lead strips was mounted bet… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

2
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
2
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results from the same Contrast phantom measured using a clinical MDCT (SOMATOM Force, Siemens, Germany) were included as the reference. As shown, the HU values derived from the N1 ms-CBCT and the clinical CBCT M both deviate from the MDCT reference, consistent with previous studies of CBCT 28 30 . The deviations are reduced in results from the ms-CBCT.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The results from the same Contrast phantom measured using a clinical MDCT (SOMATOM Force, Siemens, Germany) were included as the reference. As shown, the HU values derived from the N1 ms-CBCT and the clinical CBCT M both deviate from the MDCT reference, consistent with previous studies of CBCT 28 30 . The deviations are reduced in results from the ms-CBCT.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…These results were benchmarked against those obtained from a clinical MDCT (SOMATOM Force, Siemens, Germany), serving as the standard. As indicated, the HU values from the N1 ms-CBCT and the clinical CBCT M exhibit variations from the MDCT standard, aligning with findings from previous CBCT studies [25][26][27]. However, the ms-CBCT demonstrates a reduction in these discrepancies.…”
Section: Hu Accuracysupporting
confidence: 83%