Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (한국방사선학회논문지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (한국방사선학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Research on Image Quality and Effective dose by Exposure Index Variation

Exposure Index변화에 따른 Image Quality와 Effective dose에 대한 연구: a Monte Carlo Simulation Study

  • Received : 2013.01.05
  • Accepted : 2013.02.22
  • Published : 2013.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Comparing with film-screen system, flat-panel detector has extensive dynamic range. Focusing flat-panel detector, whole body human phantom PBU-50 (Kyoto, kagaku, Japan) was used to perform comparative study of the estimate of image quality and exposure dose. the exposure condition was 81kV and 20mAs, which is used for Abdomen supine exam in clinical area. As a result of the kV change of the interpreted medical image which has over 30dB of PSNR value, the value of DAP shows the difference of 19.6 times. Moreover, the result of comparing kV change with effective dose of ICRP 103 shows that stochastic effect was increased by over exposure. Therefore, it is significantly necessary that digital radiation technical chart will be used to obtain high quality image and make the standard of dose by educating radio-technologist continually.

평판 검출기(flat-panel detector)는 필름-스크린 시스템과 비교하여 넓은 범위의 노출지수(dynamic range)를 갖게 된다. 평판 검출기를 대상으로 임상에서 일반적으로 사용하고 있는 Abdomen supine 노출 조건인 81kV에 20mAs를 기준으로 전신형 팬텀 whole body human phantom PBU-50 (Kyoto, kagaku, Japan)을 모의 환자로 화질평가와 피폭선량측면에서 비교 연구하였다. PSNR값이 30dB이상으로 판독 가능한 영상의 kV변화에 따른 DAP값은 약 19.6배 차이를 나타냈다. 또한 kV변화에 따른 유효선량을 ICRP 103을 기준으로 비교한 결과 방사선에 의한 확률적 영향이 증가함을 알 수 있었다. 방사선검사자의 지속적인 교육 및 지도를 통한 우리나라에 맞는 디지털 방사선 Technical chart를 마련하여 양질의 영상과 환자피폭선량에 대한 기준 선량을 마련해야 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. ICRP: 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection. Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP Vol. 21, No. 1-3, Pergamon Press,Oxford(1991)
  2. UNSCEAR 2000 Report Vol. I Source and Effects of Ionization Radiation, AnnexD Medical Radiation Exposure, UNSCEAR(2000)
  3. Korner, M., et al. Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview.Radiographics, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 675-686,2007. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.273065075
  4. Williams, M. B., et al. Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition. JAmCollRadiol, Vol. 4. No. 6, pp.371-388,2007
  5. Hyunsoo, Kim. et al. Picture Quality According to the Type of Detector in Full-field Digital Mammography. Journal of the Korean Physical Society.Vo. 58, No 2, pp.364-371.2011 https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.58.364
  6. 진단용방사선발생장치의 안전관리에 관한 규칙 보건복지가족부령 제 156호. (2010.01.22 개정).
  7. Y. HASHIMOTO, S. SAMPEI, N. MORINAGA. Channel Monitor-based Unequal Error Protection with Dynamic OFDM Subcarrier Assignment for Video Transmission. In Proceedings of 2002 IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Fall 2002.
  8. Ung Keun Cho, Jin Hyuk Hong, Sung Bae Cho, Image enhancement based on the Genetic Algorithm for reducing impulsive noises. Vol. 33, No. 1(B), 2006.
  9. NRPB R200 : Anational survey of dose to patients undergoing a selection of routine X-ray examination in English hospitals.National Radiological Protection Board,England, 1986.
  10. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med Vol. 357, pp.2277-2284, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072149
  11. Shepard, S. J., et al., An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (executive summary), Medical physics. Vol 36, No. 7, pp.2898-2914, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3121505

Cited by

  1. A Analysis of Effectiveness of Aluminium Filter in the added Compound Filtration by Detective Quantum Efficiency and Image Quality Evaluation vol.15, pp.10, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2015.15.10.362