Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31461532›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2019

Comparison of CsI:Tl and Gd

Adrian Howansky, Anastasiia Mishchenko, A R Lubinsky, Wei Zhao

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Characterizing Emerging Detector Materials for Low-Dose X-Ray Imaging.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  8. Performance of Dual-Layer Flat-Panel Detectors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Analogous Lubberts effect in photon counting detectors.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Adrian HowanskyDepartment of Radiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8460, USA.
Anastasiia MishchenkoAnalogic Canada Corporation, Saint-Laurent, Québec, H4R 2P1, Canada.
A R LubinskyDepartment of Radiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8460, USA.
Wei ZhaoDepartment of Radiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8460, USA.

Funding

Flat-panel X-ray Imaging Detector with Avalanche GainR01EB002655 · NIBIB · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI ZHAO, WEI · 2003 to 2013
$3.9M
Back-irradiated flat panel imager with avalanche gainR01EB026267 · NIBIB · STATE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK STONY BROOK · PI ZHAO, WEI · 2018 to 2021
$2.4M
Brookhaven National Laboratory DE-SC0012704NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB002655NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026267NIH HHS R01 EB002655NIH HHS R01 EB026267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of indirect flat panel detectors (I-FPDs) is limited at higher x-ray energies (e.g., 100-140 kVp) by low absorption in their scintillating x-ray conversion layer. While increasing the thickness of the scintillator can improve its x-ray absorption efficiency, this approach is potentially limited by reduced spatial resolution and increased noise due to depth dependence in the scintillator's response to x rays. One strategy proposed to mitigate these deleterious effects is to irradiate the scintillator through the pixel sensor in a "back-irradiation" geometry. This work directly evaluates the impact of irradiation geometry on the inherent imaging performance of I-FPDs composed with columnar CsI:Tl and powder Gd

methodsA "bidirectional" FPD was constructed which allows scintillator samples to be interchangeably coupled with the detector's active matrix to compose an I-FPD. Radio-translucent windows in the detector's housing permit imaging in both "front-irradiation" (FI) and "back-irradiation" (BI) geometries. This test device was used to evaluate the impact of irradiation geometry on the x-ray sensitivity, modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and DQE of four I-FPDs composed using columnar CsI:Tl scintillators of varying thickness (600-1000 µm) and optical backing, and a Fast Back GOS screen. All experiments used an RQA9 x-ray beam.

resultsEach I-FPD's x-ray sensitivity, MTF, and DQE was greater or equal in BI geometry than in FI. The I-FPD composed with CsI:Tl (1 mm) and an optically absorptive backing had the largest variation in sensitivity (17%) between FI and BI geometries. The detector composed with GOS had the largest improvement in limiting resolution (31%). Irradiation geometry had little impact on MTF(f) and DQE(f) measurements near zero frequency, however, the difference between FI and BI measurements generally increased with spatial frequency. The CsI:Tl scintillator with optically absorptive backing (1 mm) in BI geometry had the highest spatial resolution and DQE over all frequencies.

conclusionsBack irradiation may improve the inherent x-ray imaging performance of I-FPDs composed with CsI:Tl and GOS scintillators. This approach can be leveraged to improve tradeoffs between detector dose efficiency, spatial resolution and noise for higher energy x-ray imaging.

Indexed as

CesiumGadoliniumIodidesThalliumEquipment DesignRadiographyScintillation CountingCesiumcesium iodideGadoliniumgadolinium sulfoxylateIodidesThalliumdetective quantum efficiencydigital radiographyflat panel detectorLubberts effectscintillatorSwank factor

Identifiers

PMID31461532
PMCPMC6842040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.