The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determination of the weighted CT dose index in modern multi-detector CT scanners
Open accessAbstract
The aim of the present study was to (a) evaluate the underestimation in the value of the free-in-air (CTDI(air)) and the weighted CT dose index (CTDI(w)) determined with the standard 100 mm pencil chamber, i.e. the CTDI(100) concept, for the whole range of nominal radiation beam collimations selectable in a modern multi-slice CT scanner, (b) estimate the optimum length of the pencil-chamber and phantoms for accurate CTDI(w) measurements and (c) provide CTDI(w) values normalized to free-in-air CTDI for different tube-voltage, nominal radiation beam collimations and beam filtration values. The underestimation in the determination of CTDI(air) and CTDI(w) using the CTDI(100) concept was determined from measurements obtained with standard polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) phantoms and arrays of thermoluminescence dosimeters. The Monte Carlo N-Particle transport code was used to simulate standard CTDI measurements on a 16-slice CT scanner. The optimum pencil-chamber length for accurate determination of CTDI(w) was estimated as the minimum chamber length for which a further increase in length does not alter the value of the CTDI. CTDI(w)/CTDI(air) ratios were determined using Monte Carlo simulation and the optimum detector length for all selectable tube-voltage values and for three different values of beam filtration. To verify the Monte Carlo results, measured values of CTDI(w)/CTDI(air) ratios using the standard 100 mm pencil ionization chamber were compared with corresponding values calculated with Monte Carlo experiments. The underestimation in the determination of CTDI(air) using the 100 mm pencil chamber was less than 1% for all beam collimations. The underestimation in CTDI(w) was 15% and 27% for head and body phantoms, respectively. The optimum detector length for accurate CTDI(w) measurements was found to be 50 cm for the beam collimations commonly employed in modern multi-detector (MD) CT scanners. The ratio of CTDI(w)/CTDI(air) determined using the optimum detector length was found to be independent of beam collimation. Percentage differences between measured and calculated corresponding CTDI(w)/CTDI(air) ratios were always less than 8% for head and less than 5% for body PMMA phantoms. In conclusion, the CTDI(air) of MDCT scanners may be measured accurately with a 100 mm pencil chamber. However, the CTDI(100) concept was found to be inadequate for accurate CTDI(w) determination for the wide beam collimations commonly used in MDCT scanners. Accurate CTDI(w) determination presupposes the use of a pencil chamber and PMMA phantoms at least 50 cm long.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Although predominantly obsolete in contemporary systems, CTDIw may nevertheless be cited for comparative analysis of legacy systems or for assessing older apparatus.95”
From Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction (2026) · cites this paper as [95]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
An accurate method for computer‐generating tungsten anode x‐ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV
Boone, J. M., & Seibert, J. A. (1997) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.597953 · Cited by 708
AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT
McNitt‐Gray, M. F. (2002) · Radiographics · doi:10.1148/rg.226025128 · Cited by 612
A method for describing the doses delivered by transmission x-ray computed tomography
Shope, T. B., Gagne, R. M., & Johnson, G. C. (1981) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.594995 · Cited by 435
Boone, J. M. (2007) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.2713240 · Cited by 418
A PC program for estimating organ dose and effective dose values in computed tomography
Kalender, W. A., Schmidt, B. T., Zankl, M., et al. (1999) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s003300050709 · Cited by 231
A new look at CT dose measurement: Beyond CTDI
Dixon, R. L. (2003) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1576952 · Cited by 202
Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations
Khursheed, A., Hillier, M. C., Shrimpton, P. C., & Wall, B. F. (2002) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.75.898.750819 · Cited by 191
Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography
Jessen, K. A., Shrimpton, P. C., Geleijns, J., Panzer, W., & Tosi, G. (1999) · Applied Radiation and Isotopes · doi:10.1016/s0969-8043(98)00024-4 · Cited by 188
Enlarged longitudinal dose profiles in cone‐beam CT and the need for modified dosimetry
Mori, S., Endo, M., Nishizawa, K., et al. (2005) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1877852 · Cited by 141
Tzedakis, A., Damilakis, J. E., Perisinakis, K., Stratakis, J., & Gourtsoyiannis, N. (2005) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1924309 · Cited by 134
Self-citationStandardized Methods for Measuring Diagnostic X-Ray Exposures
Chu, R. Y. L., Fisher, J., Archer, B. R., Conway, B. J., Goodsitt, M. M., Glaze, S. A., Gray, J. E., & Strauss, K. J. (1990) · doi:10.37206/30 · Cited by 76
Brenner, D. J., McCollough, C. H., & Orton, C. G. (2006) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.2173933 · Cited by 75
Novel methods of measuring single scan dose profiles and cumulative dose in CT
Nakonechny, K. D., Fallone, B. G., & Rathee, S. (2004) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1835571 · Cited by 66
Tzedakis, A., Damilakis, J. E., Perisinakis, K., et al. (2007) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.2710331 · Cited by 64
Self-citationIs it time to retire the CTDI for CT quality assurance and dose optimization?
Brenner, D. J. (2005) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.2040747 · Cited by 61
Bozkurt, A., & Bor, D. (2006) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/52/2/001 · Cited by 60
Perisinakis, K., Raissaki, M., Tzedakis, A., Theocharopoulos, N., Damilakis, J. E., & Gourtsoyiannis, N. (2005) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1881852 · Cited by 53
Self-citationThe Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography
Jurik, A. G., Bongartz, G., Golding, S. J., et al. (1998) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032540 · Cited by 53
Staton, R. J., Lee, C., Lee, C., Williams, M. D., Hintenlang, D. E., Arreola, M. M., Williams, J. L., & Bolch, W. E. (2006) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/20/005 · Cited by 35
Damilakis, J. E., Tzedakis, A., Sideri, L., et al. (2002) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1517292 · Cited by 27
Self-citationFetal dose assessment from invasive special procedures by Monte Carlo methods
Metzger, R. L., & van Riper, K. A. (1999) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.598663 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Jones D G, 1993, NRPB SR250
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Optimization of CT radiation dose: Insight into DLP and CTDI
Arfat, M., Haq, A., Beg, T., & Jaleel, G. (2024) · Future Health · doi:10.25259/fh_45_2024 · Cited by 10
Oglat, A., Shdaifat, S., Sayah, M., Abukonna, A., & Khogali, W. (2026) · Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety · doi:10.2147/dhps.s595721
Metadata
- Authors
- Perisinakis, K., Damilakis, J., Tzedakis, A., Papadakis, A., Theocharopoulos, N., & Gourtsoyiannis, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Crete (GR)
- Venue
- Physics in Medicine and Biology
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2007-10-16
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 6485-6495
- ISSN
- 0031-9155 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6560
- OpenAlex
- W2056577594
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Physics in Medicine and Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Siemens
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Keywords
- pencil ionization chamber, multidetector computed tomography, radiation dosimetry, beam collimation, beam filtration, tube voltage, PMMA phantom, thermoluminescent dosimeters, Monte Carlo simulation, dose normalization, radiation protection
- MeSH terms
- Equipment Design, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Radiation Dosage, Radiometry, Thermoluminescent Dosimetry, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, X-Rays, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Tomography Scanners, X-Ray Computed, Phantoms, Imaging, Polymethyl Methacrylate
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
