A new test phantom with different breast tissue compositions for image quality assessment in conventional and digital mammography

Pachoud, M.; Lepori, D.; Valley, J.-F.; Verdun, Francis R.

doi:10.1088/0031-9155/49/23/005

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 show the GE-detector MTF measurements by the manufacturer and independent authors [16,17]. All these data can be described by a single Gaussian with ν = 34 for the GE data [16] and ν = 37-39 for the data examined in [17]. As expected, the values obtained here for MTF using a single Gaussian for PSF 0 are higher than the GE data (see Fig.…”

Section: Spatial Resolutionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…The resolution depends on the PSF 0 model and differs by approximately 6%-8% between the two models. The resolution obtained by the sum of two Gaussians differs from that calculated using MTF data [16] (~2% for Unit_1 and ~6% for Unit_2), and the difference between the resolutions for the two detection devices is approximately 8%. As has already been mentioned, this difference can be partly explained by the difference in beam energy.…”

Section: Spatial Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…For the detectors under study, there are not enough points to fit independently all the parameters given in Table 4. The observed MTF data [16] indicate that a single Gaussian function for PSF 0 should be sufficient. However, the single Gaussian function does not provide an acceptable fit to the current experimental data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The pixel fill-factor value for this data set is 0.65. In the literature, another value (0.75) for the pixel fill factor was found [16]. This parameter is very important for extraction of the presampled PSF 0 ; for this reason, another data set was calculated by proportionally changing all sizes to get a fill factor of 0.75 (see Table 4).…”

Section: Spatial Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The symbols in Fig. 11 show the GE-detector MTF measurements by the manufacturer and independent authors [16,17]. All these data can be described by a single Gaussian with ν = 34 for the GE data [16] and ν = 37-39 for the data examined in [17].…”

Section: Spatial Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Simultaneous pixel detection probabilities and spatial resolution estimation of pixelized detectors by means of correlation measurements

Grabski

2008

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the basis of the determination of statistical correlations between neighboring detector pixels, a novel method of estimating the simultaneous detection probability of pixels and the spatial resolution of pixelized detectors is proposed. The correlations are determined using noise variance measurement for isolated pixels and for the difference between neighboring pixels. The method is validated using images from two image-acquisition devices, a General Electric Senographe 2000D and a SD mammographic unit. The pixelized detector is irradiated with X-rays over its entire surface. It is shown that the simultaneous pixel detection probabilities can be estimated with an accuracy of 0.001-0.003, with an estimated systematic error of less than 0.005. The two-dimensional presampled point-spread function (PSF ) 0 is determined using a single Gaussian approximation and a sum of two Gaussian approximations. The results obtained for the presampled PSF 0 show that the single Gaussian approximation is not appropriate, and the sum of two Gaussian approximations providing the best fit predicts the existence of a large (~50%) narrow component. Support for this observation can be found in the recent simulation study of columnar indirect digital detectors by Badano et al. The sampled two-dimensional PSF is determined using Monte Carlo simulation for the L-shaped, uniformly distributed acceptance function for different fill-factor values. The calculation of the presampled modulation transfer function based on the estimated PSF 0 shows that the observed data can be reproduced only by the single Gaussian approximation, and that when the sum of two Gaussians is used, significantly larger values are apparent in the higher-frequency region for images from both detection devices. The proposed method does not require a precisely, constructed tool. It is insensitive to beam collimation and to system physical size and may be indispensable in cases where thin absorption slits or edges are difficult to use. It could therefore be very useful for regular detector verification.

show abstract