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.
An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive
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, 472–479 (1993).
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.
4.R. Van Metter and J. Yorkston, “Applying a proposed definition for receptor dose to digital projection images,” Proc. SPIE 6142, 426–444 (2006.
6.International Organization for Standardization 9236-1:2004, 2004.
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,S162–S164 (2004).
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.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.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.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.IEC 61267 (ed. 2.0), Medical diagnostic X-ray equipment - Radiation conditions for use in the determination of characteristics, International Electrotechnical Commission (2005).
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.E. Samei, J. A. Seibert, C. Willis, M. Flynn, E. Mah, and K. Junck, “Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems,” Med. Phys. 28, 361–371 (2001).
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.R. Van Metter and J. Yorkston, “Toward a universal definition of speed for digitally acquired projection images,” Proc. SPIE 5745, 442–457 (2005).
17.E. Samei et al., AAPM Report No. OR-3, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, College Park, MD (2005).
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.E. G. Christodoulou, M. M. Goodsitt, H. P. Chan, and T. W. Hepburn, “Phototimer setup for CR imaging,” Med. Phys. 27, 2652–2658 (2000).
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.L. E. Wilkinson and J. C. P. Heggie, “Determination of Correct AEC Function with Computed Radiography Cassettes,” Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 20, 186–191 (1997).
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, 178–185 (1994).
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, 588–599 (1995).
26.J. H. Hubbell, NBS Report No. 29, 1969 (unpublished).
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.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.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.Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems (1985 edition), Bulletin #675, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC (1986).
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, 1661–1670 (1997).
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.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).
Article metrics loading...
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
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
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.
Full text loading...
Most read this month