MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970423232 · doi:10.1002/mp.13791

Comparison of CsI:Tl and Gd<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub>S:Tb indirect flat panel detector x‐ray imaging performance in front‐ and back‐irradiation geometries

2019· article· en· W2970423232 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Howansky, Anastasiia Mishchenko, A. R. Lubinsky, Wei Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsAnalogic (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringBrookhaven National LaboratoryNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDetective quantum efficiencyScintillatorOpticsOptical transfer functionX-ray detectorMaterials scienceFlat panel detectorDetectorIrradiationAbsorption (acoustics)PhysicsOptoelectronicsImage qualityNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of indirect flat panel detectors (I‐FPDs) is limited at higher x‐ray energies (e.g., 100–140 kVp) by low absorption in their scintillating x‐ray conversion layer. While increasing the thickness of the scintillator can improve its x‐ray absorption efficiency, this approach is potentially limited by reduced spatial resolution and increased noise due to depth dependence in the scintillator’s response to x rays. One strategy proposed to mitigate these deleterious effects is to irradiate the scintillator through the pixel sensor in a “back‐irradiation” geometry. This work directly evaluates the impact of irradiation geometry on the inherent imaging performance of I‐FPDs composed with columnar CsI:Tl and powder Gd 2 O 2 S:Tb (GOS) scintillators. Methods A “bidirectional” FPD was constructed which allows scintillator samples to be interchangeably coupled with the detector’s active matrix to compose an I‐FPD. Radio‐translucent windows in the detector’s housing permit imaging in both “front‐irradiation” (FI) and “back‐irradiation” (BI) geometries. This test device was used to evaluate the impact of irradiation geometry on the x‐ray sensitivity, modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and DQE of four I‐FPDs composed using columnar CsI:Tl scintillators of varying thickness (600–1000 µm) and optical backing, and a Fast Back GOS screen. All experiments used an RQA9 x‐ray beam. Results Each I‐FPD’s x‐ray sensitivity, MTF, and DQE was greater or equal in BI geometry than in FI. The I‐FPD composed with CsI:Tl (1 mm) and an optically absorptive backing had the largest variation in sensitivity (17%) between FI and BI geometries. The detector composed with GOS had the largest improvement in limiting resolution (31%). Irradiation geometry had little impact on MTF( f ) and DQE( f ) measurements near zero frequency, however, the difference between FI and BI measurements generally increased with spatial frequency. The CsI:Tl scintillator with optically absorptive backing (1 mm) in BI geometry had the highest spatial resolution and DQE over all frequencies. Conclusions Back irradiation may improve the inherent x‐ray imaging performance of I‐FPDs composed with CsI:Tl and GOS scintillators. This approach can be leveraged to improve tradeoffs between detector dose efficiency, spatial resolution and noise for higher energy x‐ray imaging.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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