The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: Magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter
Open accessAbstract
A system for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) based on a flat-panel imager (FPI) is used to examine the magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter in FPI-CBCT volume reconstructions. The system is being developed for application in image-guided therapies and has previously demonstrated spatial resolution and soft-tissue visibility comparable or superior to a conventional CT scanner under conditions of low x-ray scatter. For larger objects consistent with imaging of human anatomy (e.g., the pelvis) and for increased cone angle (i.e., larger volumetric reconstructions), however, the effects of x-ray scatter become significant. The magnitude of x-ray scatter with which the FPI-CBCT system must contend is quantified in terms of the scatter-to-primary energy fluence ratio (SPR) and scatter intensity profiles in the detector plane, each measured as a function of object size and cone angle. For large objects and cone angles (e.g., a pelvis imaged with a cone angle of 6 degrees), SPR in excess of 100% is observed. Associated with such levels of x-ray scatter are cup and streak artifacts as well as reduced accuracy in reconstruction values, quantified herein across a range of SPR consistent with the clinical setting. The effect of x-ray scatter on the contrast, noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in FPI-CBCT reconstructions was measured as a function of SPR and compared to predictions of a simple analytical model. The results quantify the degree to which elevated SPR degrades the CNR. For example, FPI-CBCT images of a breast-equivalent insert in water were degraded in CNR by nearly a factor of 2 for SPR ranging from approximately 2% to 120%. The analytical model for CNR provides a quantitative understanding of the relationship between CNR, dose, and spatial resolution and allows knowledgeable selection of the acquisition and reconstruction parameters that, for a given SPR, are required to restore the CNR to values achieved under conditions of low x-ray scatter. For example, for SPR = 100%, the CNR in FPI-CBCT images can be fully restored by: (1) increasing the dose by a factor of 4 (at full spatial resolution); (2) increasing dose and slice thickness by a factor of 2; or (3) increasing slice thickness by a factor of 4 (with no increase in dose). Other reconstruction parameters, such as transaxial resolution length and reconstruction filter, can be similarly adjusted to achieve CNR equal to that obtained in the scatter-free case.
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.
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
Cited by
Sisniega, A., Zbijewski, W., Badal, A., Kyprianou, I. S., Stayman, J. W., Vaquero, J. J., & Siewerdsen, J. H. (2013) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.4801895 · Cited by 117
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Siewerdsen, J. H., & Jaffray, D. A.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 220-231
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2043193153
- Cited by
- 612
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: Magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.1339879
- The paper
- Siewerdsen, J. H., & Jaffray, D. A. (2001). Cone-beam computed tomography with a flat-panel imager: Magnitude and effects of x-ray scatter. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1339879
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.