Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers

Open access
Verdun, F.R., Racine, D., Ott, J.G., Tapiovaara, M.J., Toroi, P., Bochud, F.O., Veldkamp, W.J.H., Schegerer, A., Bouwman, R.W., Giron, I. Hernandez, Marshall, N.W., Edyvean, S.·2015·Physica Medica

Abstract

Evaluation of image quality (IQ) in Computed Tomography (CT) is important to ensure that diagnostic questions are correctly answered, whilst keeping radiation dose to the patient as low as is reasonably possible. The assessment of individual aspects of IQ is already a key component of routine quality control of medical x-ray devices. These values together with standard dose indicators can be used to give rise to 'figures of merit' (FOM) to characterise the dose efficiency of the CT scanners operating in certain modes. The demand for clinically relevant IQ characterisation has naturally increased with the development of CT technology (detectors efficiency, image reconstruction and processing), resulting in the adaptation and evolution of assessment methods. The purpose of this review is to present the spectrum of various methods that have been used to characterise image quality in CT: from objective measurements of physical parameters to clinically task-based approaches (i.e. model observer (MO) approach) including pure human observer approach. When combined together with a dose indicator, a generalised dose efficiency index can be explored in a framework of system and patient dose optimisation. We will focus on the IQ methodologies that are required for dealing with standard reconstruction, but also for iterative reconstruction algorithms. With this concept the previously used FOM will be presented with a proposal to update them in order to make them relevant and up to date with technological progress. The MO that objectively assesses IQ for clinically relevant tasks represents the most promising method in terms of radiologist sensitivity performance and therefore of most relevance in the clinical environment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Verdun, F. R., Racine, D., Ott, J. G., Tapiovaara, M. J., Toroi, P., Bochud, F. O., Veldkamp, W. J. H., Schegerer, A., Bouwman, R. W., Giron, I. H., Marshall, N. W., & Edyvean, S.
Venue
Physica Medica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
823-843
ISSN
1120-1797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2195096812
Cited by
300
References
2
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007
The paper
Verdun, F. R., Racine, D., Ott, J. G., Tapiovaara, M. J., Toroi, P., Bochud, F. O., Veldkamp, W. J. H., Schegerer, A., Bouwman, R. W., Giron, I. H., Marshall, N. W., & Edyvean, S. (2015). Image quality in CT: From physical measurements to model observers. Physica Medica. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.08.007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.