ArticleMedical physics2013
Evaluation of the microangiographic fluoroscope (MAF) using generalized system performance metrics.
Article in Medical physics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- An experimental method to directly measure DQE[Formula: see text] at k = 0 for 2D x-ray imaging systems.Physics in medicine and biology · 2019Article
- Initial investigations of a special high-definition (Hi-Def) zoom capability in a new detector system for neuro-interventional procedures.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2018Article
- Photon-counting hexagonal pixel array CdTe detector: Spatial resolution characteristics for image-guided interventional applications.Medical physics · 2016Article
- Region-of-interest cone beam computed tomography (ROI CBCT) with a high resolution CMOS detector.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical EngineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe performance of a newly developed, high resolution, microangiographic fluoroscope (MAF) (35 μm pixel pitch and 300 μm thick CsI phosphor) was evaluated using a generalized linear system analysis and compared with that of a standard amorphous Si thin film transistor flat panel detector (FPD) (194 μm pixel pitch and 600 μm thick CsI phosphor). The linear system metrics such as modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum, and detection quantum efficiency (DQE) are commonly used to gauge the intrinsic detector performance in the detector plane. However, these linear system metrics do not provide information about the image receptor performance in a real system since they do not include the effects of other parameters such as focal spot distribution, scatter radiation, and geometric unsharpness, which may compromise detector performance characteristics. Use of generalized linear system metrics [generalized modulation transfer function (GMTF), generalized normalized noise power spectrum (GNNPS), and generalized detection quantum efficiency (GDQE)] that include these effects gives a more meaningful, complete, and appropriate evaluation of detector performance as part of the imaging system.
methodsA uniform head equivalent phantom was used to simulate realistic clinical parameters and x-ray spectra. The detector MTFs were measured using the slanted edge method and the focal spot MTFs were measured using a pinhole assembly. The scatter MTF was simulated and the scatter fraction was measured for a head-equivalent phantom. The generalized system metrics were calculated for different combinations of three choices of focal spots and three different magnifications with two different air-gaps. The performance of the MAF was also illustrated using stent images obtained with different focal spots under similar conditions.
resultsResults for the generalized metrics provide a quantitative description of the performance of the imaging system for both detectors. This generalized analysis demonstrated that both detectors have similar imaging capabilities at lower spatial frequencies, but that the MAF has superior performance over the FPD at higher frequencies even when considering focal spot blurring and scatter.
conclusionsThis generalized performance analysis demonstrates the significance of focal spot size, magnification, and scatter on the system performance metrics (GMTF, GNNPS, and GDQE). Although the ideal detector performance characteristics of the MAF are not fully realized due to these other system factors, it still retains an advantage in DQE at high spatial frequencies over the FPD. Similar studies based on the generalized linear system metrics can serve as an efficient tool to evaluate total system capabilities under different realistic conditions to enable optimal design for specific imaging tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.