ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2017
K-edge energy-based calibration method for photon counting detectors.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Photon-Counting CT: Physics, Detector Technology, and Image Reconstructions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A physics primer on photon-counting detectors in CT: Physics, signal formation, and performance.Medical physics · 2026Review
- Mechanisms of Action of AGuIX as a Pan-Cancer Nano-Radiosensitizer: A Comprehensive Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Photon counting-energy integrating hybrid flat panel detector systems for image-guided interventions: an experimental proof-of-concept.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Photon Counting CT Angiography of the Head and Neck: Image Quality Assessment of Polyenergetic and Virtual Monoenergetic Reconstructions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Impact of anti-charge sharing on the zero-frequency detective quantum efficiency of CdTe-based photon counting detector system: cascaded systems analysis and experimental validation.Physics in medicine and biology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, potential applications of energy-resolved photon counting detectors (PCDs) in the x-ray medical imaging field have been actively investigated. Unlike conventional x-ray energy integration detectors, PCDs count the number of incident x-ray photons within certain energy windows. For PCDs, the interactions between x-ray photons and photoconductor generate electronic voltage pulse signals. The pulse height of each signal is proportional to the energy of the incident photons. By comparing the pulse height with the preset energy threshold values, x-ray photons with specific energies are recorded and sorted into different energy bins. To quantitatively understand the meaning of the energy threshold values, and thus to assign an absolute energy value to each energy bin, energy calibration is needed to establish the quantitative relationship between the threshold values and the corresponding effective photon energies. In practice, the energy calibration is not always easy, due to the lack of well-calibrated energy references for the working energy range of the PCDs. In this paper, a new method was developed to use the precise knowledge of the characteristic K-edge energy of materials to perform energy calibration. The proposed method was demonstrated using experimental data acquired from three K-edge materials (viz., iodine, gadolinium, and gold) on two different PCDs (Hydra and Flite, XCounter, Sweden). Finally, the proposed energy calibration method was further validated using a radioactive isotope (Am-241) with a known decay energy spectrum.
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.