Quality analysis of DSA equipment

“…Images of the CDRAD 2.0 contrast-detailphantom (Nijmegen project team, the Netherlands) and the TRG-phantom (Alvim R & D Ltd, Jerusalem, Israel) were acquired as hardcopies (Figs 1 and 2). Technical properties of these phantoms have been described elsewhere (3,7,9,15). CDRADimages were presented to 4 independent observers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a: SE digital radiography: An assessment of contrast and detail visualization

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An Automatic Evaluation System for Contrast‐Detail Phantom Images in Digital Radiography

Lin

Cheng

et al. 2012

Int J Imaging Syst Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, contrast-detail phantom (CD phantom) images are widely used to assist medical experts for diagnosis, because these images can be used to study imaging quality and assess the radiation dose amount for digital X-ray imaging systems. However, the quality of the CD phantom image varies from person to person, increasing the possibility of false diagnosis. In this article, we propose an automatic evaluation system to measure the quality of a phantom image an alternative to assessment by radiologists. The proposed method is based on bilinear pixel interpolation, geometric transformation, and region shifting to efficiently and objectively evaluate the quality of a phantom image. Moreover, misjudgment modification is also proposed to further improve the recognition accuracy. The experimental results show that the accuracy of the proposed method is very close to that of the radiologists' observations. The results have also proven that the proposed method is a feasible way to evaluate the quality of a phantom image in an objective and automatic manner. V

show abstract

Development of a neonate X‐ray phantom for 2D imaging applications using single‐tone inkjet printing

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Inkjet printers can be used to fabricate anthropomorphic phantoms by the use of iodine‐doped ink. However, challenges persist in implementing this technique. The calibration from grayscale to ink density is complex and time‐consuming. The purpose of this work is to develop a printing methodology that requires a simpler calibration and is less dependent on printer characteristics to produce the desired range of x‐ray attenuation values. Methods Conventional grayscale printing was substituted by single‐tone printing; that is, the superposition of pure black layers of iodinated ink. Printing was performed with a consumer‐grade inkjet printer using ink made of potassium‐iodide (KI) dissolved in water at 1 g/ml. A calibration for the attenuation of ink was measured using a commercial x‐ray system at 70 kVp. A neonate radiograph obtained at 70 kVp served as an anatomical model. The attenuation map of the neonate radiograph was processed into a series of single‐tone images. Single‐tone images were printed, stacked, and imaged at 70 kVp. The phantom was evaluated by comparing attenuation values between the printed phantom and the original radiograph; attenuation maps were compared using the structural similarity index measure (SSIM), while attenuation histograms were compared using the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence. A region of interest (ROI)‐based analysis was also performed, where the attenuation distribution within given ROIs was compared between phantom and patient. The phantom sharpness was evaluated in terms of modulation transfer function (MTF) estimates and signal spread profiles of high spatial resolution features in the image. Results The printed phantom required 36 pages. The printing queue was automated and it took about 2 h to print the phantom. The radiograph of the printed phantom demonstrated a close resemblance to the original neonate radiograph. The SSIM of the phantom with respect to that of the patient was 0.53. Both patient and phantom attenuation histograms followed similar distributions, and the KL divergence between such histograms was 0.20. The ROI‐based analysis showed that the largest deviations from patient attenuation values were observed at the higher and lower ends of the attenuation range. The limiting resolution of the proposed methodology was about 1 mm. Conclusion A methodology to generate a neonate phantom for 2D imaging applications, using single‐tone printing, was developed. This method only requires a single‐value calibration and required less than 2 h to print a complete phantom.

show abstract

Quality analysis of DSA equipment

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a: SE digital radiography: An assessment of contrast and detail visualization

Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a: SE digital radiography: An assessment of contrast and detail visualization

An Automatic Evaluation System for Contrast‐Detail Phantom Images in Digital Radiography

Development of a neonate X‐ray phantom for 2D imaging applications using single‐tone inkjet printing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About