Low-Contrast Detail Phantom: Proof of Concept

Geso, Moshi; Shanahan, Madeleine; Al‐Ghamdi, Sami G.; Davidson, Rob; Alghamdi, Somayah

doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2015.11.001

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The radiological image of the CDRAD test object can also be scored subjectively by observers 16,17 or using automatic scoring software 18 . To investigate whether the MDSS X-ray imaging system can be used in clinical practice for X-ray imaging examinations, the image quality of the MDSS was evaluated objectively and compared to the results of examinations of thorax and extremity regions using conventional DR X-ray imaging systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Radiation Exposure to the Patient and Contrast Detail Resolutions Across Low Dose 2d/3d Slot Scanner and Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-Ray Imaging Systems

Abdi

Mussmann

Mackenzie

et al. 2019

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Usually, the inverse image quality figure (IQFinv) is used to evaluate the quality of the radiographic images. The IQFinv is defined by the following equation 2 17,18,22 , i.e. the higher the IQFinv, the better the image quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Radiation Exposure to the Patient and Contrast Detail Resolutions Across Low Dose 2d/3d Slot Scanner and Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-Ray Imaging Systems

Abdi

Mussmann

Mackenzie

et al. 2019

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 17 ] For these reasons, IQFinv was used to survey the performance of different digital radiography systems, as used by other researchers too. [ 15 19 20 ] The difference between the present study and other studies was that, instead of comparing the IQFinv values in a stable dose, IQFinv-to-IAK ratios [ Figure 3 ] were used in a fixed radiation condition. In fact, using these ratios would reduce the factors affecting the image quality and make a more accurate comparison of different digital radiography systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%