1993
DOI: 10.1117/12.164741
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

<title>X-ray cone beam CT system calibration</title>

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…stage. One of the earlier studies [65] proposes a set of procedures to analytically determine misalignments and offsets in cone-beam systems using a grid-plate with regularly distributed holes. Each hole is identified sequentially by a number = i 1 to N (figure 18(a)).…”
Section: Methods Based On Fixed or Limited Positions Of The Rotationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…stage. One of the earlier studies [65] proposes a set of procedures to analytically determine misalignments and offsets in cone-beam systems using a grid-plate with regularly distributed holes. Each hole is identified sequentially by a number = i 1 to N (figure 18(a)).…”
Section: Methods Based On Fixed or Limited Positions Of The Rotationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the assessment of geometric errors, manufacturers prescribe proprietary procedures that use, e.g. : (a) a bar with two steel spheres of different sizes encapsulated in it for calibrating preset magnification positions [2]; (b) a two-layer grid plate with uniformly spaced holes for checking and numerically correcting the tilt of the rotation axis about the normal to the detector and the offset of the rotation axis from the magnification axis [3]; or (c) a phantom for checking the horizontal position of the rotation axis and numerically correcting it over the entire magnification axis [4]. Being those proprietary procedures either part of the protocol performed by the manufacturer during regular service interventions or black-box procedures that must be followed by the user periodically to keep the errors within reasonable limits, they do not allow the user to assess their effect on the measurement uncertainty.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast to image intensifiers, which have pincushion distortion of up to several millimetres [11][12][13], the geometry distortions of the scintillator-based flat-panel detectors used in radiographic imaging systems were usually considered negligible [6]. The only study known to us that corrects geometric detector distortions for dimensional CT was performed by Weiss et al [14], who measured flat-panel detector distortions of up to ±0.15 pixel (0.05 pixel on average) per coordinate using a calibrated ball plate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%