journals.iop.org home page electronic journals * User guide   * Site map   | Quick Search:Help  
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Athens/Institutional login
IOP login: Password:   
Create account | Alerts | Contact us
Journals Home | Journals List | EJs Extra | This Journal | Search | Authors | Referees | Librarians | User Options | Help |

A comparison of x-ray detectors for mouse CT imaging

Andrew L Goertzen et al 2004 Phys. Med. Biol. 49 5251-5265   doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/23/004  Help

   PDF (420 KB) | References | Articles citing this article

Andrew L Goertzen1,2, Vivek Nagarkar3, Robert A Street4, Michael J Paulus5, John M Boone1,6 and Simon R Cherry1
1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
2 McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3 Radiation Monitoring Devices Inc., Watertown, MA, USA
4 Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA, USA
5 Imtek Inc., Knoxville, TN, USA
6 Department of Radiology, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
E-mail: goertzen@bic.mni.mcgill.ca

Abstract. There is significant interest in using computed tomography (CT) for in vivo imaging applications in mouse models of disease. Most commercially available mouse x-ray CT scanners utilize a charge-coupled device (CCD) detector coupled via fibre optic taper to a phosphor screen. However, there has been little research to determine if this is the optimum detector for the specific task of in vivo mouse imaging. To investigate this issue, we have evaluated four detectors, including an amorphous selenium (a-Se) detector, an amorphous silicon (a-Si) detector with a gadolinium oxysulphide (GOS) screen, a CCD with a 3:1 fibre taper and a GOS screen, and a CCD with a 2:1 fibre taper and both GOS and thallium-doped caesium iodide (CsI:Tl) screens. The detectors were evaluated by measuring the modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), detective quantum efficiency (DQE), stability over multiple exposures, and noise in reconstructed CT images. The a-Se detector had the best MTF and the highest DQE (0.6 at 0 lp mm−1) but had the worst stability (45% reduction after 2000 exposure frames). The a-Si detector and the CCD with the 3:1 fibre, both of which used the GOS screen, had very similar performance with a DQE of approximately 0.30 at 0 lp mm−1. For the CCD with the 2:1 fibre, the CsI:Tl screen resulted in a nearly two-fold improvement in DQE over the GOS screen (0.4 versus 0.24 at 0 lp mm−1). The CCDs both had the best stability, with less than a 1% change in pixel values over multiple exposures. The pixel values of the a-Si detector increased 5% over multiple exposures due to the effects of image lag. Despite the higher DQE of the a-Se detector, the reconstructed CT images acquired with the a-Si detector had lower noise levels, likely due to the blurring effects from the phosphor screen.

Print publication: Issue 23 (7 December 2004)
Received 21 July 2004, in final form 4 October 2004
Published 10 November 2004

Bookmark and Share Post to CiteUlike | Post to Connotea | Post to Bibsonomy

 


Find related articles






Article options

Authors & Referees

 
Content finder
  Full Search
  Help


  
Setup information is available for Adobe Acrobat.
EndNote, ProCite ® and Reference Manager ® are registered trademarks of ISI Researchsoft.
Copyright © Institute of Physics and IOP Publishing Limited 2009.
Use of this service is subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of use. In particular, reselling and systematic downloading of files is prohibited.
Help: Cookies | Data Protection.