ArticleMedical physics2019
Comparison of CsI:Tl and Gd
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxyhalide Glass Ceramics Containing Eu-Doped Calcium Fluoride Crystals Evaluated as X-ray Conversion Screens for Digital Radiography.Optical Materials · 2026Article
- Theoretical modeling and performance analysis of a direct-indirect dual-layer flat-panel detector for contrast-enhanced breast imaging.Medical physics · 2026Article
- From Materials to Medical Images: Translating Perovskite-Based X-Ray Detectors Toward Clinical Imaging.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Novel Integrated Technology of Pixelized Inorganic Scintillator Wafers for X-Rays and Neutron Detection.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploration of Copper Halide Linear-Array Detector Prototype for Security Checks.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Atomically confined excitons in 2D perovskites for bright and sub-nanosecond scintillation.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Characterizing Emerging Detector Materials for Low-Dose X-Ray Imaging.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025Review
- Performance of Dual-Layer Flat-Panel Detectors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Improved temporal performance and optical quantum efficiency of avalanche amorphous selenium for low dose medical imaging.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Development of Adaptive Point-Spread Function Estimation Method in Various Scintillation Detector Thickness for X-ray Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- One-dimensional scintillator film with benign grain boundaries for high-resolution and fast x-ray imaging.Science advances · 2023Article
- A Novel Method for Developing Thin Resin Scintillator Screens and Application in an X-ray CMOS Imaging Sensor.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Characterization of Flexible Amorphous Silicon Thin-Film Transistor-Based Detectors with Positive-Intrinsic-Negative Diode in Radiography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- On the Response of a Micro Non-Destructive Testing X-ray Detector.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a hybrid direct-indirect active matrix flat-panel imager using Monte Carlo simulation.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020Article
- Analogous Lubberts effect in photon counting detectors.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.