MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982382147 · doi:10.1118/1.1507779

Development of high quantum efficiency flat panel detectors for portal imaging: Intrinsic spatial resolution

2002· article· en· W1982382147 on OpenAlexaff
Geordi Pang, J. A. Rowlands

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsDetective quantum efficiencyOptical transfer functionOpticsQuantum efficiencyDetectorFlat panelFlat panel detectorImage resolutionX-ray detectorPhotonImage qualityDark currentOptoelectronicsPhysicsMaterials scienceEnergy conversion efficiencyPhoton countingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently developed flat panel detectors have been proven to have a much better image quality than conventional electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs). They are, however, not yet the ideal systems for portal imaging application due to the low x-ray absorption, i.e., low quantum efficiency (QE), which is typically on the order of 2-4% as compared to the theoretical limit of 100%. The QE of current flat panel systems can be improved by significantly increasing the thickness of the energy conversion layer (i.e., amorphous selenium or phosphor screen). This, however, will be at the expense of a decrease in spatial resolution mainly due to x-ray scatter in the conversion layer (and also the spread of optical photons in the case of phosphor screen). In this paper, we investigate theoretically the intrinsic spatial resolution of a high QE flat panel detector with a new energy conversion layer that is much denser and thicker than that of current flat panel systems. The modulation transfer function (MTF) of the system is calculated based on a theoretical model using a novel approach, which uses an analytical expression for absorbed dose. It is found that if appropriate materials are used for the conversion layer, then the intrinsic MTF of the high QE flat panel is better than that of current EPIDs, and in addition they have a high QE (e.g., approximately 60%). Some general rules for the design of the conversion layer to achieve both high QE and high resolution as well as high DQE are also discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207