2006
DOI: 10.1007/11783237_64
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental Investigation of the Necessity for Extra Flat Field Corrections in Quality Control of Digital Mammography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on this, pixel values could provide even more accurate results than estimation based on tube output measurements. However the drop in pixel values in the very first exposure after a longer time interval noted by Pöyry et al (2006) and also seen in our measurements was not related to a lower air kerma. This phenomenon was captured only once because in other cases some exposures were carried out before our measurements, and it should therefore be further investigated before drawing final conclusions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Based on this, pixel values could provide even more accurate results than estimation based on tube output measurements. However the drop in pixel values in the very first exposure after a longer time interval noted by Pöyry et al (2006) and also seen in our measurements was not related to a lower air kerma. This phenomenon was captured only once because in other cases some exposures were carried out before our measurements, and it should therefore be further investigated before drawing final conclusions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…To be able to use pixel values for air kerma estimation, the repeatability of the detector response needs to be evaluated. Variation in pixel values with the same manual exposure setting but in separate exposures has been observed (Pöyry et al 2006). However, Pöyry et al did not measure air kerma levels in their study and it was not clear whether the changes were based on the detector properties or real changes in the tube output level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…On our system, a flat field correction is applied by the system itself and image inhomogeneity was not a problem. Attempting to make the measurements at the same location from subsequent images would have suffered from variations in tube output and detector response [22]. The variations between separate exposures are larger than the local variations within the central part of an image.…”
Section: Analysis Of Imagesmentioning
confidence: 97%