ArticleMedical physics2021
Assessment of multi-energy inter-pixel coincidence counters for photon-counting detectors at the presence of charge sharing and pulse pileup: A simulation study.
Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A physics primer on photon-counting detectors in CT: Physics, signal formation, and performance.Medical physics · 2026Review
- Spatial resolution improvements for photon counting detectors using coincidence counting and frequency weighted reconstruction.Medical physics · 2025Article
- The potential of scintillator-based photon counting detectors: evaluation using Monte Carlo simulations.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2025Article
- Imaging performance of a LaBrMedical physics · 2025Article
- Number of energy windows for photon counting detectors: is more actually more?Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Chances and challenges of photon-counting CT in musculoskeletal imaging.Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- Approaches, advantages, and challenges to photon counting detector and multi-energy CT.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Direct energy binning for photon counting detectors: Simulation study.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Exploration of the pulse pileup effects in a clinical CdTe-based photon-counting computed tomography.Medical physics · 2023Article
- [A comprehensive review on photon-counting computed tomography: Principles, technical hurdles and analysis of clinical applications].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSpectral distortion due to charge sharing (CS) and pulse pileup (PP) in photon-counting detectors (PCDs) degrades the quality of PCD data. We recently proposed multi-energy inter-pixel coincidence counters (MEICC) that provided spectral cross-talk information related to CS. When PP was absent, the normalized Cramér-Rao lower bounds (nCRLBs) of 225-µm pixel PCDs with MEICC was comparable to those of 450-µm pixel PCD without MEICC. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of PCDs with MEICC in the presence of both CS and PP using computer simulations.
methodsAn in-house Monte Carlo program was modified to incorporate the following four temporal elements: (1) A pulse shape with a pulse duration of 20 ns, (2) delays of up to 10 ns in anode arrival times when photons were incident on pixel boundaries, (3) offsets proportional to a vertical separation between the primary and secondary charge clouds at the rate of ±4 ns per ±100 µm, and (4) a stochastic fluctuation of anode arrival times for all of the charge clouds with a standard deviation of 2 ns. We assessed the performance of five PCDs, (a)-(f), for three spectral tasks, (A)-(C): (a) The conventional PCD, (b) a PCD with MEICC, (c) a PCD with one coincidence counter (1CC), (d) a PCD with a 3 × 3 analog charge summing scheme (ACS), and (e) a PCD with a 3 × 3 digital count summing scheme (DCS); (A) conventional CT imaging with water (i.e., linear attenuation coefficient maps), (B) water-bone material decomposition, and (C) K-edge imaging with tungsten. The tube current was changed from 1 mA to 1000 mA and the nCRLB was assessed.
resultsThe recorded count rate curves were fitted by the non-paralyzable detection model with the effective deadtime parameter. The best fit was achieved by 25.8 ns for the conventional PCD, 18.6 ns for MEICC and 1CC, 140.5 ns for ACS, and 209.0 ns for DCS. The nCRLBs were strongly dependent on count rates. MEICC provided the best nCRLBs for all of the imaging tasks over the count rate range investigated except for a few conditions such as K-edge imaging at 1 mA. PP decreased the merit of MEICC over the conventional PCD in addressing CS. Nonetheless, MEICC consistently provided better nCRLBs than the conventional PCD did. The nCRLBs of MEICC were in the range of 49-58% of those of the conventional PCD for K-edge imaging, 45-76% for water-bone material decomposition, and 81-88% for the conventional CT imaging (i.e., linear attenuation coefficient maps). ACS provided better nCRLBs than the conventional PCD did only when the effect of PP was minor (e.g., when the counting efficiency of the conventional PCD was higher than 0.95 with the tube current of up to 100 mA).
conclusionBesides a few cases, MEICC provides the best nCRLBs for all of the tasks at all of the count rates. ACS and DCS provide better nCRLBs than the conventional PCD does only when count rates are very low.
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.