ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Comprehensive image quality comparison of conventional and new flat panel detectors under bedside chest radiography beam conditions.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noise characteristics in synthetic mammography derived from digital breast tomosynthesis: a comparison with conventional digital mammography.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Fundamental performance and clinical usefulness of a new AEC-equipped flat panel detector for dose optimization.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Quantitative evaluation of a deep learning-based noise reduction algorithm in digital radiography using noise power spectrum analysis.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, a novel wireless flat-panel detector with auto-exposure control has become available. This study aimed to elucidate the potential advantages of the new detector over conventional detectors through a comprehensive analysis of the physical image quality characteristics. Measurements were conducted on two models: new (720C) and conventional (710C) versions; this assessment was performed by assuming the beam quality for bedside chest radiography, utilizing a portable device for X-ray exposure. The detective quantum efficiency (DQE) was computed based on the presampled modulation transfer function (MTF) and normalized noise power spectrum. The validity of the DQE results was verified through the visualization of the analog blurring components and a detailed analysis of the noise components. The spatial frequency at which the presampled MTF value reached 10% was 5.2 cycles/mm for 720C and 3.9 cycles/mm for 710C. The full width at half-maximum of the spatial spreading of analog components was estimated at 0.09 mm for 720C and 0.14 mm for 710C by the visualization. Regarding the DQE, 720C was superior under low-dose conditions despite no significant differences being observed under high-dose conditions. The new detector demonstrated superior resolution characteristics compared with the conventional detector and an improvement in the DQE under low-dose conditions. However, similar to the conventional detector, a significant dose dependence caused by a structural factor was confirmed for the DQE. These results suggest the existence of an appropriate dose range for maximizing detector performance and provide insights crucial for optimization tasks in the X-ray imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39538057What 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.