Xenon versus ceramics: A comparison of two CT x-ray detector systems

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 795-799

  Becker, Christoph R ^a,b   Bruening, Roland ^a   Schaetzl, Manfred ^a   Schoepf, Uwe J ^a   Reiser, Maximilian F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Artifact; Image quality; Signal to noise ratio; Spine; Xenon Computed tomography, detectors

Indexed keywords

CERAMIC MATERIALS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PHANTOMS; X RAY DETECTORS; XENON;

ARTIFACT; CT IMAGE; CT-SCAN; DETECTOR SYSTEMS; IMAGE NOISE; LUMBAR SPINES; PHANTOMS; SPINE; X-RAY DETECTOR; XENON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, DETECTOR;

SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO;

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

EID: 0032874963     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199909000-00030     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Kalender W, Seissler W, Klot E, Vock P. Spiral volumetric CT with single-breath-hold technique, continuous transport and continuous scanner rotation. Radiology 1990;176:181-3.
2. Alexander J, Kalender W, Linke G. Computed tomography. Berlin: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, 1985.
3. Faulkner K, Moores B. Noise and contrast detection in computed tomography images. Phys Med Biol 1984;29:329-39.
4. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.
5. Zankl M, Panzer W, Drexler G. Part VI: organ doses from computed tomographic examinations. GSF-Bericht 30/91. The calculation of dose from external photon exposures using reference human phantoms and Monte Carlo methods. München: GSF-Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit GmbH, 1991.
6. Felsenberg D, Kalender WA, Trinkwalter W, Wolf KJ. [CT examination with reduced radiation dose.] Rofo 1990;153:516-21.
7. Jurik AG, Jessen KA, Hansen J. Image quality and dose in computed tomography. Eur Radiol 1997;7:77-81.
8. Hidajat N, Vogl T, Schroder RJ, Felix R. [Calculated organ doses and effective dosage for computerized tomography examination of the thorax and abdomen: are these doses realistic?] Rofo 1996;164: 382-7.
9. Mayo JR, Hartman TE, Lee KS, Primack SL, Vedal S, Muller NL. CT of the chest: minimal tube current required for good image quality with the least radiation dose. AJR 1995;164:603-7.
10. Kaneko M, Eguchi K, Ohmatsu H, et al. Peripheral lung cancer: screening and detection with low-dose spiral CT versus radiography. Radiology 1996;201:798-802.
11. Mayo JR, Jackson SA, Muller NL. High-resolution CT of the chest: radiation dose. AJR 1993;160:479-81.
12. McCollough E, Morin R. CT-number variability in thoracic geometry. AJR 1983;141:135-40.
13. Giacommuzzi SM, Erckert B, Schopf T, et al. [The smart-scan procedure of spiral computed tomography. A new method for dose reduction.] Rofo 1996;165:10-6.
14. Kalender W, Wolf H, Suess C, Gies M, Hentschel D, Bautz W. Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation: experimental results and patient studies. Radiology 1997; 5205:471.