The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The influence of antiscatter grids on soft‐tissue detectability in cone‐beam computed tomography with flat‐panel detectors: Antiscatter grids in cone‐beam CT
Abstract
The influence of antiscatter x‐ray grids on image quality in cone‐beam computed tomography (CT) is evaluated through broad experimental investigation for various anatomical sites (head and body), scatter conditions (scatter‐to‐primary ratio (SPR) ranging from to 150%), patient dose, and spatial resolution in three‐dimensional reconstructions. Studies involved linear grids in combination with a flat‐panel imager on a system for kilovoltage cone‐beam CT imaging and guidance of radiation therapy. Grids were found to be effective in reducing x‐ray scatter “cupping” artifacts, with heavier grids providing increased image uniformity. The system was highly robust against ring artifacts that might arise in CT reconstructions as a result of gridline shadows in the projection data. The influence of grids on soft‐tissue detectability was evaluated quantitatively in terms of absolute contrast, voxel noise, and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) in cone‐beam CT reconstructions of “head” and “body” cylindrical phantoms. Imaging performance was investigated qualitatively in observer preference tests based on patient images (pelvis, abdomen, and head‐and‐neck sites) acquired with and without antiscatter grids. The results suggest that although grids reduce scatter artifacts and improve subject contrast, there is little strong motivation for the use of grids in cone‐beam CT in terms of CNR and overall image quality under most circumstances. The results highlight the tradeoffs in contrast and noise imparted by grids, showing improved image quality with grids only under specific conditions of high x‐ray scatter , high imaging dose , and low spatial resolution (voxel size ).
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
Siewerdsen, J. H., Daly, M. J., Bakhtiar, B., Moseley, D. J., Richard, S., Keller, H., & Jaffray, D. A. (2006) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.2148916 · Cited by 283
Self-citationSisniega, 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., Moseley, D. J., Bakhtiar, B., Richard, S., & Jaffray, D. A.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-11-24
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3506-3520
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- OpenAlex
- W2050624834
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The influence of antiscatter grids on soft‐tissue detectability in cone‐beam computed tomography with flat‐panel detectors: Antiscatter grids in cone‐beam CT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.1819789
- The paper
- Siewerdsen, J. H., Moseley, D. J., Bakhtiar, B., Richard, S., & Jaffray, D. A. (2004). The influence of antiscatter grids on soft‐tissue detectability in cone‐beam computed tomography with flat‐panel detectors: Antiscatter grids in cone‐beam CT. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1819789
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.