Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors

Robert E. Alvarez, J Anthony Seibert

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many different types of detectors are used for dual energy x-ray radiography. We developed an objective, technology independent, experimental method to compare the performance of these detectors. Our method uses a quality factor defined as the signal to noise ratio squared divided by the dose. We measure this quality factor by making images of a calibration phantom containing steps with known aluminum and plastic thickness. From the energy selective data, we compute an aluminum equivalent thickness image. The signal is the difference in the average value between two steps of the phantom with different aluminum thickness. The noise is the standard deviation of the computed values over the steps. The dose is the incident x-ray exposure. We applied this method to compare three energy selective detectors: (1) a single exposure, double screen, 'sandwich' storage phosphor detector, (2) an active storage phosphor detector using two exposures with different x-ray tube voltages with a light pulse erasing the front screen signal between x-ray exposures, and (3) a single exposure, double screen film detector. We found that the quality factor of the active detector is much larger than the single exposure film detector which in turn is substantially larger than the single exposure, storage phosphor detector.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
EditorsRichard L. Van Metter, Jacob Beutel
Pages534-543
Number of pages10
Volume2708
StatePublished - 1996
Externally publishedYes
EventMedical Imaging 1996: Physics of Medical Imaging - Newport Beach, CA, USA
Duration: Feb 11 1996Feb 13 1996

Other

OtherMedical Imaging 1996: Physics of Medical Imaging
CityNewport Beach, CA, USA
Period2/11/962/13/96

Fingerprint

Detectors
X rays
detectors
x rays
Phosphors
phosphors
energy
Q factors
aluminum
Aluminum
x ray tubes
dosage
Radiography
radiography
Dosimetry
standard deviation
Signal to noise ratio
signal to noise ratios
plastics
Calibration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering
  • Condensed Matter Physics

Cite this

Alvarez, R. E., & Seibert, J. A. (1996). Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors. In R. L. Van Metter, & J. Beutel (Eds.), Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering (Vol. 2708, pp. 534-543)

Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors. / Alvarez, Robert E.; Seibert, J Anthony.

Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. ed. / Richard L. Van Metter; Jacob Beutel. Vol. 2708 1996. p. 534-543.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Alvarez, RE & Seibert, JA 1996, Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors. in RL Van Metter & J Beutel (eds), Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. vol. 2708, pp. 534-543, Medical Imaging 1996: Physics of Medical Imaging, Newport Beach, CA, USA, 2/11/96.
Alvarez RE, Seibert JA. Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors. In Van Metter RL, Beutel J, editors, Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. Vol. 2708. 1996. p. 534-543
Alvarez, Robert E. ; Seibert, J Anthony. / Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering. editor / Richard L. Van Metter ; Jacob Beutel. Vol. 2708 1996. pp. 534-543
@inproceedings{d5cd8d5fc6c64ef79874e251dcadeb23,
title = "Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors",
abstract = "Many different types of detectors are used for dual energy x-ray radiography. We developed an objective, technology independent, experimental method to compare the performance of these detectors. Our method uses a quality factor defined as the signal to noise ratio squared divided by the dose. We measure this quality factor by making images of a calibration phantom containing steps with known aluminum and plastic thickness. From the energy selective data, we compute an aluminum equivalent thickness image. The signal is the difference in the average value between two steps of the phantom with different aluminum thickness. The noise is the standard deviation of the computed values over the steps. The dose is the incident x-ray exposure. We applied this method to compare three energy selective detectors: (1) a single exposure, double screen, 'sandwich' storage phosphor detector, (2) an active storage phosphor detector using two exposures with different x-ray tube voltages with a light pulse erasing the front screen signal between x-ray exposures, and (3) a single exposure, double screen film detector. We found that the quality factor of the active detector is much larger than the single exposure film detector which in turn is substantially larger than the single exposure, storage phosphor detector.",
author = "Alvarez, {Robert E.} and Seibert, {J Anthony}",
year = "1996",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "0819420832",
volume = "2708",
pages = "534--543",
editor = "{Van Metter}, {Richard L.} and Jacob Beutel",
booktitle = "Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Experimental comparison of dual-energy x-ray image detectors

AU - Alvarez, Robert E.

AU - Seibert, J Anthony

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - Many different types of detectors are used for dual energy x-ray radiography. We developed an objective, technology independent, experimental method to compare the performance of these detectors. Our method uses a quality factor defined as the signal to noise ratio squared divided by the dose. We measure this quality factor by making images of a calibration phantom containing steps with known aluminum and plastic thickness. From the energy selective data, we compute an aluminum equivalent thickness image. The signal is the difference in the average value between two steps of the phantom with different aluminum thickness. The noise is the standard deviation of the computed values over the steps. The dose is the incident x-ray exposure. We applied this method to compare three energy selective detectors: (1) a single exposure, double screen, 'sandwich' storage phosphor detector, (2) an active storage phosphor detector using two exposures with different x-ray tube voltages with a light pulse erasing the front screen signal between x-ray exposures, and (3) a single exposure, double screen film detector. We found that the quality factor of the active detector is much larger than the single exposure film detector which in turn is substantially larger than the single exposure, storage phosphor detector.

AB - Many different types of detectors are used for dual energy x-ray radiography. We developed an objective, technology independent, experimental method to compare the performance of these detectors. Our method uses a quality factor defined as the signal to noise ratio squared divided by the dose. We measure this quality factor by making images of a calibration phantom containing steps with known aluminum and plastic thickness. From the energy selective data, we compute an aluminum equivalent thickness image. The signal is the difference in the average value between two steps of the phantom with different aluminum thickness. The noise is the standard deviation of the computed values over the steps. The dose is the incident x-ray exposure. We applied this method to compare three energy selective detectors: (1) a single exposure, double screen, 'sandwich' storage phosphor detector, (2) an active storage phosphor detector using two exposures with different x-ray tube voltages with a light pulse erasing the front screen signal between x-ray exposures, and (3) a single exposure, double screen film detector. We found that the quality factor of the active detector is much larger than the single exposure film detector which in turn is substantially larger than the single exposure, storage phosphor detector.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029714347&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029714347&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:0029714347

SN - 0819420832

SN - 9780819420831

VL - 2708

SP - 534

EP - 543

BT - Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering

A2 - Van Metter, Richard L.

A2 - Beutel, Jacob

ER -