1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
oa
An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive Summary)
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/7/10.1118/1.3121505
1.
1.M. Freedman, E. Pe, S. K. Mun, S. C. B. Lo, and M. Nelson, “The potential for unnecessary patient exposure from the use of storage phosphor imaging systems,” Proc. SPIE 1897, 472479 (1993).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.146998
2.
2.D. Gur, C. R. Fuhman, J. H. Feist, R. Slifko, and B. Peace, “Natural migration to a higher dose in CR imaging,” Proceedings of the Eighth European Congress of Radiology (ISBN: 0938-7994), Vienna, Italy, 12–17 September 1993, p. 154.
3.
3.J. A. Seibert, D. K. Shelton, and E. H. Moore, “Computed radiography x-ray exposure trends,” Acad. Radiol. 3(4), 313318 (1996).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80247-9
4.
4.R. Van Metter and J. Yorkston, “Applying a proposed definition for receptor dose to digital projection images,” Proc. SPIE 6142, 426444 (2006.
5.
5.W. Huda, “The current concept of speed should not be used to describe digital imaging systems,” Radiology 234, 345346 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2342040760
6.
6.International Organization for Standardization 9236-1:2004, 2004.
7.
7.C. E. Willis and T. L. Slovis, “The ALARA concept in pediatric CR and DR: Dose reduction in pediatric radiographic exams—A white paper conference executive summary,” Pediatr. Radiol. 34,S162S164 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1264-y
8.
8.Digital Imaging Communications in Medicine (DICOM) 3.0, Performance Standard (PS) 3.14, Grayscale Standard Display Function, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 N. 17th Street Rosslyn, VAa 22209, 2007.
9.
9.Digital Imaging Communications in Medicine (DICOM) 3.0, Supplement 111: Segmentation Storage SOP Class, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 N. 17th Street Rosslyn, VA 22209, 2007.
10.
10.Digital Imaging Communications in Medicine (DICOM) 3.0, Supplement 33: Grayscale Softcopy Presentation State Storage, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 N. 17th Street Rosslyn, VA 22209, 2007.
11.
11.Digital Imaging Communications in Medicine (DICOM) 3.0, Performance Standard (PS) 3.10, Media Storage and File Format for Media Interchange, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 N. 17th Street Rosslyn, VA 22209, 2007.
12.
12.IEC 61267 (ed. 2.0), Medical diagnostic X-ray equipment - Radiation conditions for use in the determination of characteristics, International Electrotechnical Commission (2005).
13.
13.IEC 62220-1 (ed. 1.0), Medical electrical equipment - characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices - Part 1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency, International Electrotechnical Commission (2003).
14.
14.E. Samei, J. A. Seibert, C. Willis, M. Flynn, E. Mah, and K. Junck, “Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems,” Med. Phys. 28, 361371 (2001).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1350586
15.
15.J. A. Seibert, T. Bogucki, T. Ciona, W. Huda, A. Karellas, J. Mercier, E. Samei, S. J. Shepard, B. Stewart, K. Strauss, O. Suleiman, D. Tucker, R. Uzenoff, J. Weiser, and C. Willis, AAPM Report No. 93, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD (2006).
16.
16.R. Van Metter and J. Yorkston, “Toward a universal definition of speed for digitally acquired projection images,” Proc. SPIE 5745, 442457 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.595606
17.
17.E. Samei et al., AAPM Report No. OR-3, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD (2005).
18.
18.W. R. Hendee and R. P. Rossi, Quality assurance for radiographic x-ray units and associated equipment, DHEW Publication (OSTI ID 5545617), Bureau of Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, Colorado Univ. Medical Center, Denver, CO, FDA-79-8094 (1979).
19.
19.E. G. Christodoulou, M. M. Goodsitt, H. P. Chan, and T. W. Hepburn, “Phototimer setup for CR imaging,” Med. Phys. 27, 26522658 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1319522
20.
20.L. W. Goldman, “Speed values, AEC performance evaluation and quality control with digital receptors,” in Specifications, Performance Evaluations, and Quality Assurance for Radiographic and Fluoroscopic Equipment in the Digital Era, AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No. 30 edited by L. W. Goldman and M. V. Yester, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI (2004).
21.
21.L. E. Wilkinson and J. C. P. Heggie, “Determination of Correct AEC Function with Computed Radiography Cassettes,” Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 20, 186191 (1997).
22.
22.C. E. Willis, J. C. Weiser, R. G. Leckie, J. Romlein, and G. Norton, “Optimization and quality control of computed radiography,” Proc. SPIE 2164, 178185 (1994).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.173999
23.
23.C. E. Willis, R. G. Leckie, J. Carter, M. P. Williamson, S. D. Scotti, and G. Norton, “Objective measures of quality assurance in a computed radiography-based radiology department,” Proc. SPIE 2432, 588599 (1995).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.208381
24.
24.H. G. Chotas and C. E. Ravin, “Digital radiography with photostimulable storage phosphors: Control of detector latitude in chest imaging,” Invest. Radiol. 27, 822828 (1992).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199210000-00012
25.
25.M. Arreola and L. Rill, “Management of pediatric radiation dose using Canon digital radiography,” Pediatr. Radiol. 34, S221S226 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1273-x
26.
26.J. H. Hubbell, NBS Report No. 29, 1969 (unpublished).
27.
27.E. Storm, “Calculated bremsstrahlung spectra from thick tungsten targets,” Phys. Rev. A 5(6), pp. 23282338 (1978).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.5.2328
28.
28.E. Storm, “Emission of characteristic L and K radiation from thick tungsten targets,” J. Appl. Phys. 43(6), 27902796 (1972).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1661596
29.
29.T. R. Fewell and R. E. Shuping, “Handbook of mammography spectra,” DHEW Publication, FDA 79-8071, Bureau of Radiological Health, Rockville, MD (1978).
30.
30.F. Biggs and R. Lighthill, Analytical Approximations for X-Ray Cross Sections II, SC-RR-71-0507, Weapons Effects Research Department, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico (1971).
31.
31.W. H. McMaster, N. Kerr Del Grande, J. H. Mallett, and J. H. Hubbell, Compilation of x-ray cross sections UCRL-50174, sections I, II revision 1, III, IV, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Volume 8, Issues 4–6, US Atomic Energy Commission (1970).
32.
32.Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems (1985 edition), Bulletin #675, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC (1986).
33.
33.J. M. Boone and J. A. Seibert, “An accurate method for computer-generating tungsten anode x-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV,” Med. Phys. 24, 16611670 (1997).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.597953
34.
34.D. E. Cullen, M. H. Chen, J. H. Hubbell, S. T. Perkins, E. F. Plechaty, R. J. A., and J. H. Scofield, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report No. UCRL-50400, 1989 (unpublished).
35.
35.J. H. Hubbell and S. M. Seltzer, Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients (Version 1.4), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (2004) (http://physics.nist.gov/xaamdi).
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/7/10.1118/1.3121505
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/7/10.1118/1.3121505
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/7/10.1118/1.3121505
2009-06-09
2015-07-02

Abstract

Digital radiographic imaging systems, such as those using photostimulable storage phosphor, amorphous selenium, amorphous silicon, CCD, and MOSFET technology, can produce adequate image quality over a much broader range of exposure levels than that of screen/film imaging systems. In screen/film imaging, the final image brightness and contrast are indicative of over- and underexposure. In digital imaging, brightness and contrast are often determined entirely by digital postprocessing of the acquired image data. Overexposure and underexposures are not readily recognizable. As a result, patient dose has a tendency to gradually increase over time after a department converts from screen/film-based imaging to digital radiographic imaging. The purpose of this report is to recommend a standard indicator which reflects the radiation exposure that is incident on a detector after every exposure event and that reflects the noise levels present in the image data. The intent is to facilitate the production of consistent, high quality digital radiographic images at acceptable patient doses. This should be based not on image optical density or brightness but on feedback regarding the detector exposure provided and actively monitored by the imaging system. A standard beam calibration condition is recommended that is based on RQA5 but uses filtration materials that are commonly available and simple to use. Recommendations on clinical implementation of the indices to control image quality and patient dose are derived from historical tolerance limits and presented as guidelines.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/36/7/1.3121505.html;jsessionid=20sktpk2b6tdf.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/7/10.1118/1.3121505&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address

Oops! This section does not exist...

Use the links on this page to find existing content.

752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive Summary)
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/7/10.1118/1.3121505
10.1118/1.3121505
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM