KEYWORDS: Modulation transfer functions, Sensors, Data modeling, Digital mammography, Lead, Aluminum, Detection and tracking algorithms, X-rays, Tumor growth modeling, Polymethylmethacrylate
The purpose of this study is to propose a test procedure for global and local resolution assessment in digital mammography to detect sharpness problems. The MTF calculation was based on the presampled edge method. In a first phase, we compared the effect of geometry and exposure conditions on the MTF.
Results were: (1) the MTF was reproducible; (2) MTF data can be corrected for edge angle; (3) scatter conditions have significant influence; (4) edge position in the detector plane has negligible influence; (5) the required edge length for our algorithm is longer than the critical length to get rid of noise effects; (6) exposure conditions have no major influence except at very low dose levels.
We propose to approximate clinical working conditions for the global MTF-check, with an edge-object embedded in 45mm PMMA and clinical exposures. Localized MTF calculations with this phantom and software can be automated for QA by the medical physicist.
For sharpness analysis all over the detector, we designed a test-object with oblique, parallel bars and automatic software tools are being developed. By means of software simulations, local variations in the sharpness could be detected. Validation in practice and further automation of the software tools is ongoing.
KEYWORDS: Modulation transfer functions, Sensors, X-rays, Digital mammography, Signal attenuation, Quantum efficiency, X-ray detectors, Data modeling, Fourier transforms, Polymethylmethacrylate
X-ray detector systems can be characterized by their measured or estimated detective quantum efficiency (DQE). Assessment of DQE includes a measurement of the modulation transfer function (MTF) and the normalized noise power spectrum (NNPS). The incoming X-ray quantum flux has to be estimated. In this paper, the influence of the different possibilities regarding the measurement methods and phantoms, the X-ray quantum flux estimation models and the exposure geometry on the DQE of a full field digital mammography detector is assessed. Physical models were used to fit MTF measurements from bar-pattern and edge phantoms. The NNPS was calculated by 2D-FFT on a large number of flat-field subimages. The flux was calculated using anode spectra models (Boone, 1997) and attenuation data (NIST). We compared the influence of scattered radiation MTF calculations of both phantoms were similar. The edge method is preferred for practical reasons. NNPS data were similar to 1D synthetic-slit measurements. DQE data compared well with literature. Different exposure geometry conditions (with scattered radiation) showed similar results but a siginificantly lower DQE than in absence of scattered radiation. DQE assessment is feasible using normal exposure conditions, an edge phantom and calculated estimations of the flux.
The storage phosphor RbBr:Tl+ can be grown in needles via vacuum deposition. Thanks to reduced lateral light diffusion thick needle screens still offer acceptable resolution. Due to its low intrinsic X-ray absorption, however, a RbBr:Tl+ needle screen does not lead to a better absorption/resolution compromise than a BaFBr1-xIx:Eu2+ powder screen. CsBr:Eu2+ does combine high specific X-ray absorption and the possibility of needle growth. Its blue emission, peaking at 440 nm and near IR stimulation band, with maximum at 685 nm, make it well suited for use in CR systems. Sensitivity and sharpness of a 500 (mu) thick CsBr:Eu2+ needle screen were measured in a flying-spot scanner. The number of photostimulated light quanta per absorbed X-ray quantum is higher than for BaFBr1-xIx:Eu2+. At 70 kVp and 0.5 mm Cu filtration, equal sharpness is obtained for 85% vs. 46% X-ray absorption in BaFBr1-xIx:Eu2+ screens. DQE was measured at 2.5 (mu) Gy, 70 kVp, and 0.5 mm Cu filtration for a CsBr:Eu2+ needle screen in a flying-spot scanner. Up to 3 lp/mm, DQE was 2 times higher than for state-of-the-art CR systems and equal to the DQE claimed for flat panel DR systems, based on a-Si photodiodes combined with a CsI:Tl scintillator layer.
KEYWORDS: Brain, Magnetic resonance imaging, Image segmentation, 3D image processing, Cerebellum, Neuroimaging, Mouse models, Control systems, In vivo imaging, Lithium
Nowadays, transgenic mice are a common tool to study brain abnormalities in neurological disorders. These studies usually rely on neuropathological examinations, which have a number of drawbacks, including the risk of artefacts introduced by fixation and dehydration procedures. Here we present 3D Fast Spin Echo Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in combination with 2D and 3D segmentation techniques as a powerful tool to study brain anatomy. We set up MRI of the brain in mouse models for the fragile X syndrome (FMR1 knockout) and Corpus callosum hypoplasia, mental Retardation, Adducted thumbs, Spastic paraplegia and Hydrocephalus (CRASH) syndrome (L1CAM knockout). Our major goal was to determine qualitative and quantitative differences in specific brain structures. MRI of the brain of fragile X and CRASH patients has revealed alterations in the size of specific brain structures, including the cerebellar vermis and the ventricular system. In the present MRI study of the brain from fragile X knockout mice, we have measured the size of the brain, cerebellum and 4th ventricle, which were reported as abnormal in human fragile X patients, but found no evidence for altered brain regions in the mouse model. In CRASH syndrome, the most specific brain abnormalities are vermis hypoplasia and abnormalities of the ventricular system with some degree of hydrocephalus. With the MRI study of L1CAM knockout mice we found vermis hypoplasia, abnormalities of the ventricular system including dilatation of the lateral and the 4th ventricles. These subtle abnormalities were not detected upon standard neuropathological examination. Here we proved that this sensitive MRI technique allows to measure small differences which can not always be detected by means of pathology.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.