Electronic noise in CT detectors: Impact on image noise and artifacts

Xinhui Duan, Jia Wang, Shuai Leng, Bernhard Schmidt, Thomas Allmendinger, Katharine Grant, Thomas Flohr, Cynthia H. McCollough

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The OBJECTIVE of our study was to evaluate in phantoms the differences in CT image noise and artifact level between two types of commercial CT detectors: one with distributed electronics (conventional) and one with integrated electronics intended to decrease system electronic noise. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Cylindric water phantoms of 20, 30, and 40 cm in diameter were scanned using two CT scanners, one equipped with integrated detector electronics and one with distributed detector electronics. All other scanning parameters were identical. Scans were acquired at four tube potentials and 10 tube currents. Semianthropomorphic phantoms were scanned to mimic the shoulder and abdominal regions. Images of two patients were also selected to show the clinical values of the integrated detector. RESULTS. Reduction of image noise with the integrated detector depended on phantom size, tube potential, and tube current. Scans that had low detected signal had the greatest reductions in noise, up to 40% for a 30-cm phantom scanned using 80 kV. This noise reduction translated into up to 50% in dose reduction to achieve equivalent image noise. Streak artifacts through regions of high attenuation were reduced by up to 45% on scans obtained using the integrated detector. Patient images also showed superior image quality for the integrated detector. CONCLUSION. For the same applied radiation level, the use of integrated electronics in a CT detector showed a substantially reduced level of electronic noise, resulting in reductions in image noise and artifacts, compared with detectors having distributed electronics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume201
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

Artifacts
Noise
Radiation
Water

Keywords

  • Artifacts
  • Electronics
  • Noise
  • Radiation dosage
  • X-ray CT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Duan, X., Wang, J., Leng, S., Schmidt, B., Allmendinger, T., Grant, K., ... McCollough, C. H. (2013). Electronic noise in CT detectors: Impact on image noise and artifacts. American Journal of Roentgenology, 201(4). https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10234

Electronic noise in CT detectors : Impact on image noise and artifacts. / Duan, Xinhui; Wang, Jia; Leng, Shuai; Schmidt, Bernhard; Allmendinger, Thomas; Grant, Katharine; Flohr, Thomas; McCollough, Cynthia H.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 201, No. 4, 10.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Duan, X, Wang, J, Leng, S, Schmidt, B, Allmendinger, T, Grant, K, Flohr, T & McCollough, CH 2013, 'Electronic noise in CT detectors: Impact on image noise and artifacts', American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 201, no. 4. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10234
Duan, Xinhui ; Wang, Jia ; Leng, Shuai ; Schmidt, Bernhard ; Allmendinger, Thomas ; Grant, Katharine ; Flohr, Thomas ; McCollough, Cynthia H. / Electronic noise in CT detectors : Impact on image noise and artifacts. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2013 ; Vol. 201, No. 4.
@article{f773982f6dd44a23a3bcd067334cda75,
title = "Electronic noise in CT detectors: Impact on image noise and artifacts",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. The OBJECTIVE of our study was to evaluate in phantoms the differences in CT image noise and artifact level between two types of commercial CT detectors: one with distributed electronics (conventional) and one with integrated electronics intended to decrease system electronic noise. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Cylindric water phantoms of 20, 30, and 40 cm in diameter were scanned using two CT scanners, one equipped with integrated detector electronics and one with distributed detector electronics. All other scanning parameters were identical. Scans were acquired at four tube potentials and 10 tube currents. Semianthropomorphic phantoms were scanned to mimic the shoulder and abdominal regions. Images of two patients were also selected to show the clinical values of the integrated detector. RESULTS. Reduction of image noise with the integrated detector depended on phantom size, tube potential, and tube current. Scans that had low detected signal had the greatest reductions in noise, up to 40{\%} for a 30-cm phantom scanned using 80 kV. This noise reduction translated into up to 50{\%} in dose reduction to achieve equivalent image noise. Streak artifacts through regions of high attenuation were reduced by up to 45{\%} on scans obtained using the integrated detector. Patient images also showed superior image quality for the integrated detector. CONCLUSION. For the same applied radiation level, the use of integrated electronics in a CT detector showed a substantially reduced level of electronic noise, resulting in reductions in image noise and artifacts, compared with detectors having distributed electronics.",
keywords = "Artifacts, Electronics, Noise, Radiation dosage, X-ray CT",
author = "Xinhui Duan and Jia Wang and Shuai Leng and Bernhard Schmidt and Thomas Allmendinger and Katharine Grant and Thomas Flohr and McCollough, {Cynthia H.}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.2214/AJR.12.10234",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "201",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electronic noise in CT detectors

T2 - Impact on image noise and artifacts

AU - Duan, Xinhui

AU - Wang, Jia

AU - Leng, Shuai

AU - Schmidt, Bernhard

AU - Allmendinger, Thomas

AU - Grant, Katharine

AU - Flohr, Thomas

AU - McCollough, Cynthia H.

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - OBJECTIVE. The OBJECTIVE of our study was to evaluate in phantoms the differences in CT image noise and artifact level between two types of commercial CT detectors: one with distributed electronics (conventional) and one with integrated electronics intended to decrease system electronic noise. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Cylindric water phantoms of 20, 30, and 40 cm in diameter were scanned using two CT scanners, one equipped with integrated detector electronics and one with distributed detector electronics. All other scanning parameters were identical. Scans were acquired at four tube potentials and 10 tube currents. Semianthropomorphic phantoms were scanned to mimic the shoulder and abdominal regions. Images of two patients were also selected to show the clinical values of the integrated detector. RESULTS. Reduction of image noise with the integrated detector depended on phantom size, tube potential, and tube current. Scans that had low detected signal had the greatest reductions in noise, up to 40% for a 30-cm phantom scanned using 80 kV. This noise reduction translated into up to 50% in dose reduction to achieve equivalent image noise. Streak artifacts through regions of high attenuation were reduced by up to 45% on scans obtained using the integrated detector. Patient images also showed superior image quality for the integrated detector. CONCLUSION. For the same applied radiation level, the use of integrated electronics in a CT detector showed a substantially reduced level of electronic noise, resulting in reductions in image noise and artifacts, compared with detectors having distributed electronics.

AB - OBJECTIVE. The OBJECTIVE of our study was to evaluate in phantoms the differences in CT image noise and artifact level between two types of commercial CT detectors: one with distributed electronics (conventional) and one with integrated electronics intended to decrease system electronic noise. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Cylindric water phantoms of 20, 30, and 40 cm in diameter were scanned using two CT scanners, one equipped with integrated detector electronics and one with distributed detector electronics. All other scanning parameters were identical. Scans were acquired at four tube potentials and 10 tube currents. Semianthropomorphic phantoms were scanned to mimic the shoulder and abdominal regions. Images of two patients were also selected to show the clinical values of the integrated detector. RESULTS. Reduction of image noise with the integrated detector depended on phantom size, tube potential, and tube current. Scans that had low detected signal had the greatest reductions in noise, up to 40% for a 30-cm phantom scanned using 80 kV. This noise reduction translated into up to 50% in dose reduction to achieve equivalent image noise. Streak artifacts through regions of high attenuation were reduced by up to 45% on scans obtained using the integrated detector. Patient images also showed superior image quality for the integrated detector. CONCLUSION. For the same applied radiation level, the use of integrated electronics in a CT detector showed a substantially reduced level of electronic noise, resulting in reductions in image noise and artifacts, compared with detectors having distributed electronics.

KW - Artifacts

KW - Electronics

KW - Noise

KW - Radiation dosage

KW - X-ray CT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878907151&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878907151&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/AJR.12.10234

DO - 10.2214/AJR.12.10234

M3 - Article

C2 - 24059402

AN - SCOPUS:84878907151

VL - 201

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 4

ER -