Journal of Magnetics

The Korean Magnetics Society (한국자기학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Physical Factors on Computed Tomography Image Quality

  • Jeon, Min-Cheol (Department of Radiology, Daejeon Health Institute of Technology) ;
  • Han, Man-Seok (Department of Radiological Science, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Jang, Jae-Uk (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chungnam National University Hospital, Department of Health Medical Science, Graduate School, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Young (Department of Biomedical Engineering, Chungnam National University)
  • Received : 2017.02.24
  • Accepted : 2017.04.11
  • Published : 2017.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of X-ray photon energy, tissue density, and the kernel essential for image reconstruction on the image quality by measuring HU and noise. Images were obtained by scanning the RMI density phantom within the CT device, and HU and noise were measured as follows: images were obtained by varying the tube voltages, the tube currents and eight different kernels. The greater the voltage-dependent change in the HU value but the noise was decreased. At all densities, changes in the tube current did not exert any significant influence on the HU value, whereas the noise value gradually decreased as the tube current increased. At all densities, changes in the kernel did not exert any significant influence on the HU value. The noise value gradually increased in the lower kernel range, but rapidly increased in the higher kernel range. HU is influenced by voltage and density, and noise is influenced by voltage, current, kernel, and density. This affects contrast resolution and spatial resolution.

Keywords

References

  1. H. C. Jang, Y. S. Kim, and H. J. Kim, J. The Korea Academia- Industrial Cooperation Soc. 15, 1584 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.3.1584
  2. S. M. Ha, S. H. Jung, H. J. Chang, E. A. Park, and H. J. Shim, J. Progress in Med. Phys. 26, 28 (2015). https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2015.26.1.28
  3. E. J. Balthazar, A. J. Megibow, D. Hulnick, D. P. Naidich, Am. J. Roentgenol. 150, 301 (1988). https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.150.2.301
  4. H. M. Lee, B. G. Yoo, and D. C. Keon, J. Radiological Science and Technol. 31, 71 (2008).
  5. K. Ogden, W. Huda, E. M. Scalzetti, and M. L. Roskopf, Health Phys. 86, 397 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-200404000-00009
  6. G. N. Hounsfield, Br. J. Radiol. 68, H166 (1995).
  7. S. W. Lee, H. J. Kim, T. H. Kim, S. J. Jo, and C. L. Lee, J. Med. Phys. 20, 145 (2009).
  8. S. K. Kang, B. C. Cho, H. C. Park, and H. S. Bae, J. Med. Phys. 15, 23 (2004).
  9. J. U. Jang, M. S. Han, M. J. Kim, and H. S. Kang, J. Magn. 26, 173 (2016).
  10. Y. Watanabe, Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 2201 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/44/9/308
  11. Chung-ku Publishing, Textbook of Computed Tomography, Korea (2009) pp. 47-75.
  12. E. Gallagher, T. Lukens, S. Colussiello, D. Morgan, S. Cantrill, and M. Campbell, Ann. Emerg. Med. 36, 406 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2000.109446
  13. B. Siewert, V. Raptopoulos, M. F. Mueller, M. P. Rosen, and M. Steer, Am. J. Roentgenol. 168, 173 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.168.1.8976942
  14. R. K. Zeman, S. H. Fox, P. M. Silverman, W. J. Davros, L. M. Carter, and D. Griego, Am. J. Roentgenol. 160, 719 (1993). https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.160.4.8456652
  15. M. C. Jeon, M. S. Han, J. U. Jang, Y. K. Kim, S. Y. Seo, and G. J. Kim, Cluster Comput. 19, 931 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-016-0546-0