ArticleMedical physics2018
Modeling and evaluation of a high-resolution CMOS detector for cone-beam CT of the extremities.
Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Subjective Image Quality of Mobile C-Arms Equipped with a-Si, CMOS or IGZO Flat-Panel Detectors for Intraoperative Fluoroscopy.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Software Article: A generalized cascaded linear system model implementation for x-ray detectors.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Dynamic X-ray imaging with screen-printed perovskite CMOS array.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Technical assessment of 2D and 3D imaging performance of an IGZO-based flat-panel X-ray detector.Medical physics · 2022Article
- High-resolution model-based material decomposition in dual-layer flat-panel CBCT.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Effect of Filtered Back-Projection Filters to Low-Contrast Object Imaging in Ultra-High-Resolution (UHR) Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Microstructure using High-Resolution Extremity Cone-Beam CT with a CMOS Detector.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2019Article
- Quantitative Cone-Beam CT of Bone Mineral Density Using Model-Based Reconstruction.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2019Article
- A Prototype Intraoral Periapical Sensor with High Frame Rates for a 2.5D Periapical Radiography System.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2019Article
- Predicting image properties in penalized-likelihood reconstructions of flat-panel CBCT.Medical physics · 2019Article
- Mobile C-Arm with a CMOS detector: Technical assessment of fluoroscopy and Cone-Beam CT imaging performance.Medical physics · 2018Article
- High-Resolution Extremity Cone-Beam CT with a CMOS Detector: Evaluation of a Clinical Prototype in Quantitative Assessment of Bone Microarchitecture.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeQuantitative assessment of trabecular bone microarchitecture in extremity cone-beam CT (CBCT) would benefit from the high spatial resolution, low electronic noise, and fast scan time provided by complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) x-ray detectors. We investigate the performance of CMOS sensors in extremity CBCT, in particular with respect to potential advantages of thin (<0.7 mm) scintillators offering higher spatial resolution.
methodsA cascaded systems model of a CMOS x-ray detector incorporating the effects of CsI:Tl scintillator thickness was developed. Simulation studies were performed using nominal extremity CBCT acquisition protocols (90 kVp, 0.126 mAs/projection). A range of scintillator thickness (0.35-0.75 mm), pixel size (0.05-0.4 mm), focal spot size (0.05-0.7 mm), magnification (1.1-2.1), and dose (15-40 mGy) was considered. The detectability index was evaluated for both CMOS and a-Si:H flat-panel detector (FPD) configurations for a range of imaging tasks emphasizing spatial frequencies associated with feature size aobj. Experimental validation was performed on a CBCT test bench in the geometry of a compact orthopedic CBCT system (SAD = 43.1 cm, SDD = 56.0 cm, matching that of the Carestream OnSight 3D system). The test-bench studies involved a 0.3 mm focal spot x-ray source and two CMOS detectors (Dalsa Xineos-3030HR, 0.099 mm pixel pitch) - one with the standard CsI:Tl thickness of 0.7 mm (C700) and one with a custom 0.4 mm thick scintillator (C400). Measurements of modulation transfer function (MTF), detective quantum efficiency (DQE), and CBCT scans of a cadaveric knee (15 mGy) were obtained for each detector.
resultsOptimal detectability for high-frequency tasks (feature size of ~0.06 mm, consistent with the size of trabeculae) was ~4× for the C700 CMOS detector compared to the a-Si:H FPD at nominal system geometry of extremity CBCT. This is due to ~5× lower electronic noise of a CMOS sensor, which enables input quantum-limited imaging at smaller pixel size. Optimal pixel size for high-frequency tasks was <0.1 mm for a CMOS, compared to ~0.14 mm for an a-Si:H FPD. For this fine pixel pitch, detectability of fine features could be improved by using a thinner scintillator to reduce light spread blur. A 22% increase in detectability of 0.06 mm features was found for the C400 configuration compared to C700. An improvement in the frequency at 50% modulation (f
conclusionsThe small pixel size of CMOS detectors yields improved performance in high-resolution extremity CBCT compared to a-Si:H FPDs, particularly when coupled with a custom 0.4 mm thick scintillator. The results indicate that adoption of a CMOS detector in extremity CBCT can benefit applications in quantitative imaging of trabecular microstructure in humans.
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.