PDF] Evaluation of cassette‐based digital radiography detectors

This study indicates that the TG‐150 tests can be used as an independent standardized procedure for detector performance assessment, and suggests that fixed ROI size should be used for consistency because nonuniformity metrics depend onROI size. The purpose of this study was to evaluate several of the standardized image quality metrics proposed by the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 150. The task group suggested region‐of‐interest (ROI)‐based techniques to measure nonuniformity, minimum signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), number of anomalous pixels, and modulation transfer function (MTF). This study evaluated the effects of ROI size and layout on the image metrics by using four different ROI sets, assessed result uncertainty by repeating measurements, and compared results with two commercially available quality control tools, namely the Carestream DIRECTVIEW Total Quality Tool (TQT) and the GE Healthcare Quality Assurance Process (QAP). Seven Carestream DRX‐1C (CsI) detectors on mobile DR systems and four GE FlashPad detectors in radiographic rooms were tested. Images were analyzed using MATLAB software that had been previously validated and reported. Our values for signal and SNR nonuniformity and MTF agree with values published by other investigators. Our results show that ROI size affects nonuniformity and minimum SNR measurements, but not detection of anomalous pixels. Exposure geometry affects all tested image metrics except for the MTF. TG‐150 metrics in general agree with the TQT, but agree with the QAP only for local and global signal nonuniformity. The difference in SNR nonuniformity and MTF values between the TG‐150 and QAP may be explained by differences in the calculation of noise and acquisition beam quality, respectively. TG‐150's SNR nonuniformity metrics are also more sensitive to detector nonuniformity compared to the QAP. Our results suggest that fixed ROI size should be used for consistency because nonuniformity metrics depend on ROI size. Ideally, detector tests should be performed at the exact calibration position. If not feasible, a baseline should be established from the mean of several repeated measurements. Our study indicates that the TG‐150 tests can be used as an independent standardized procedure for detector performance assessment. PACS number(s): 87.57.‐s, 87.57.C

PDF] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DETECTOR FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

PDF) Digital radiography for the orthodontist

PDF] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DETECTOR FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

PDF] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DETECTOR FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

PDF) Digital radiography for the orthodontist

PDF) Radiation Dose Measurements in Intraoral and Panoramic Dental

PDF] EVALUATION OF DIGITAL DETECTOR ARRAYS SYSTEMS FOR INDUSTRIAL

PDF] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DETECTOR FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

PDF) Digital radiography for the orthodontist

PDF) Digital radiography for the orthodontist

PDF) Digital Dental X-ray Database for Caries Screening

PDF] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DETECTOR FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

PDF] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DETECTOR FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

PDF] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DETECTOR FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

PDF] Principles of digital radiography with large-area