ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Framework for evaluating photon-counting detectors under pile-up conditions.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: While X-ray photon-counting detectors (PCDs) promise to revolutionize medical imaging, theoretical frameworks to evaluate them are commonly limited to incident fluence rates sufficiently low that the detector response can be considered linear. However, typical clinical operating conditions lead to a significant level of pile-up, invalidating this assumption of a linear response. Here, we present a framework that aims to evaluate PCDs, taking into account their non-linear behavior. Approach: We employ small-signal analysis to study the behavior of PCDs under pile-up conditions. The response is approximated as linear around a given operating point, determined by the incident spectrum and fluence rate. The detector response is subsequently described by the proposed perturbation point spread function (pPSF). We demonstrate this approach using Monte-Carlo simulations of idealized direct- and indirect-conversion PCDs. Results: The pPSFs of two PCDs are calculated. It is then shown how the pPSF allows to determine the sensitivity of the detector signal to an arbitrary lesion. This example illustrates the detrimental influence of pile-up, which may cause non-intuitive effects such as contrast/contrast-to-noise ratio inversion or cancellation between/within energy bins. Conclusions: The proposed framework permits quantifying the spectral and spatial performance of PCDs under clinically realistic conditions at a given operating point. The presented example illustrates why PCDs should not be analyzed assuming that they are linear systems. The framework can, for example, be used to guide the development of PCDs and PCD-based systems. Furthermore, it can be applied to adapt commonly used measures, such as the modulation transfer function, to non-linear PCDs.
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.