Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors

Physics in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 979-999

  Marshall, N W ^a   Mackenzie, A ^b   Honey, I D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b ROYAL SURREY COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR KERMA; CAESIUM IODIDE; CIRCULAR DISCS; COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION; DEPTH ASSESSMENT; DETECTABILITY; DETECTIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY; DETECTOR PERFORMANCE; DETECTOR RESPONSE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL SYSTEM; DIGITAL X-RAY DETECTOR; IMAGE TRANSFER; IMAGING PERFORMANCE; IMAGING TECHNOLOGY; INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS; MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION; NORMALIZED NOISE POWER SPECTRUM; OPTICAL DENSITIES; QUALITY CONTROL MEASUREMENT; QUALITY CONTROL PROTOCOL; REPRODUCIBILITIES; SCREEN/FILM SYSTEM; SPATIAL FREQUENCY; TARGET DETECTORS; X RAY SPECTRUM;

CESIUM; CESIUM IODIDE; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPTICAL TRANSFER FUNCTION; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGY; RATING; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; X RAY APPARATUS; X RAY RADIOGRAPHY; X RAYS;

DETECTORS;

CESIUM; CESIUM IODIDE; IODIDE;

ARTICLE; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARD;

CESIUM; IODIDES; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

EID: 79551705516     PISSN: 00319155     EISSN: 13616560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/4/007     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18) 2005 Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems AAPM On-line Report 03 (College Park, MD: AAPM)
2. Albert M, Beideck D J, Bakic P R and Maidment A D A 2002 Aliasing effects in d (Pubitemid 35364207)
3. Aufrichtig R 1999 Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography Med. Phys. 26 1349-58 (Pubitemid 29334803)
4. Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P and Tassoni D 2003 On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography Med. Phys. 30 1719-31 (Pubitemid 36885789)
5. Borasi G, Samei E, Bertolini M, Nitrosi A and Tassoni D 2006 Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography Med. Phys. 33 1707-19 (Pubitemid 43830259)
6. Carton A K, Vandenbroucke D, Struye L, Maidment A D, Kao Y H, Albert M, Bosmans H and Marchal G 2005 Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control Med. Phys. 32 1684-95 (Pubitemid 40880562)
7. CEP (Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing) Lawinski C P, Mackenzie A, Cole H, Blake P and Honey I D 2005 Digital detectors for general radiography. A comparative technical report Report 05078 (London: CEP)
8. Cohen G, McDaniel D L and Wagner L K 1984 Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments Med. Phys. 11 469-473 (Pubitemid 14057398)
9. Cowen A R, Haywood J M, Workman A and Clarke O F 1987 A set of x-ray test objects for image quality control in digital subtraction fluorography: I. Design considerations B r. J. Radiol. 60 1001-9 (Pubitemid 17145894)
10. Cranley K, Gilmore B J, Fogarty G W A and Desponds L 1997 Catalogue of diagnostic x-ray spectra and other data IPEM Report 78 (York: IPEM)
11. Cunningham I A 2000 Applied linear system theory Physics and Psychophysics vol 1 ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L Van Metter (Bellingham, WA: SPIE) pp 79-159
12. Cunningham I A 2008 Use of the detective quantum efficiencyin aquality assurance program Proc. SPIE 6913 69133I
13. Dainty J C and Shaw R 1974 Image Science-Principles, Analysis and Evaluation of Photographic-Type Imaging Processes (London: Academic Press)
14. Dobbins J T 3rd, Samei E, Ranger N T and Chen Y 2006 Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization: II. Noise power spectrum Med. Phys. 33 1466-75
15. Evans D S, Mackenzie A, Lawinski C P and Smith D 2004 Threshold contrast detail detectability curves for fluoroscopy and digital acquisition using modern image intensifier systems Br. J. Radiol. 77 751-8 (Pubitemid 39386923)
16. Evans D S, Workman A and Payne M 2002 A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography Phys. Med. Biol. 47 117-35 (Pubitemid 34071352)
17. Honey I D and Mackenzie A 2009 Artifacts found during quality assurance testing of computed radiography and digital radiography detectors J. Digit. Imaging 22 383-92
18. Hiles P, Mackenzie A, Scally A, Wall B and IPEM 2005 Recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic x-ray imaging systems IPEM Report 91 (York: IPEM)
19. IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 2003 Medical electrical equipment characteristics of digital x-ray image devices-part 1. Determination of the detective quantum efficiency IEC 62220-1 (Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission)
20. IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 2005 Medical diagnostic x-ray equipment-radiation conditions for use in the determination of characteristics IEC 61267 (Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission)
21. Mackenzie A, Doshi S, Doyle P, Hill A, Honey I, Marshall N, O'Neill J, Smail M and IPEM 2010 Measurement of the performance characteristics of diagnostic x-ray systems: digital imaging systems IPEM Report 32 (Part VII) (York: IPEM)
22. Mackenzie A 2008 Validation of correction methods for the non-linear response of digital radiography systems Br. J. Radiol. 81 341-5 (Pubitemid 351702964)
23. Mackenzie A and Honey I D 2007 Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors Med. Phys. 34 3345-57 (Pubitemid 47175801)
24. Maidment A D A, Albert M, Bunch P C, Cunningham I A, Dobbins J T, Gagne R M, Nishikawa R M, Wagner R F and Van Metter R L 2003 Standardization of NPS measurement: interim report of AAPM TG16 Proc. SPIE 5030 523-32
25. Marshall N W 2006a A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system Phys. Med. Biol. 51 2441-63
26. Marshall N W 2006b Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system Phys. Med. Biol. 51 5655-73 (Pubitemid 44773338)
27. Marshall N W 2007 Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems Phys. Med. Biol. 52 5545-68 (Pubitemid 350056683)
28. Metz C E, Wagner R F, Doi K, Brown D G, Nishikawa R M and Myers K J 1995 Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems Med. Phys. 22 1057-61
29. Monnin P, Gutierrez D, Bulling S, Lepori D and Verdun F R 2005 A comparison of the imaging characteristics of the new Kodak Hyper Speed G film with the current T-MAT G/RA film and the CR 9000 system Phys. Med. Biol. 50 4541-52 (Pubitemid 41361516)
30. NHSBSP (National Health Service Breast Screening Programme) 2009 Calculation of quantitative image quality parameters-notes describing the use of OBJ-IQ-reduced equipment Report 0902 (Sheffield: NHSBSP)
31. Nishikawa R M and Yaffe M J 1990 Effect of various noise sources on the detective quantum efficiency of phosphor screens Med. Phys. 17 887-93 (Pubitemid 20353768)
32. Rimkus D A and Bailey N A 1983 Quantum noise in detectors Med. Phys. 10 470-1
33. Rong X J, Shaw C C, Liu X, Lemacks M R and Thompson S K 2001 Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems - a contrast-detail phantom study Med. Phys. 28 2328-35 (Pubitemid 33095567)
34. Rowlands J A and Yorkston J 2000 Flat panel detectors for digital radiology Physics and Psychophysics vol 1 ed J Beutel, H L Kundel and R L Van Metter (Bellingham, WA: SPIE) pp 223-328
35. Samei E and Flynn M J 2003 An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems Med. Phys. 30 608-22 (Pubitemid 36443965)
36. Samei E, Flynn M J and Reimann D A 1998 A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device Med. Phys. 25 102-13 (Pubitemid 28063694)