Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A simple, direct method for x‐ray scatter estimation and correction in digital radiography and cone‐beam CT

Siewerdsen, J. H., Daly, M. J., Bakhtiar, B., Moseley, D. J., Richard, S., Keller, H., Jaffray, D. A.·2006·Medical Physics

Abstract

X‐ray scatter poses a significant limitation to image quality in cone‐beam CT (CBCT), resulting in contrast reduction, image artifacts, and lack of CT number accuracy. We report the performance of a simple scatter correction method in which scatter fluence is estimated directly in each projection from pixel values near the edge of the detector behind the collimator leaves. The algorithm operates on the simple assumption that signal in the collimator shadow is attributable to x‐ray scatter, and the 2D scatter fluence is estimated by interpolating between pixel values measured along the top and bottom edges of the detector behind the collimator leaves. The resulting scatter fluence estimate is subtracted from each projection to yield an estimate of the primary‐only images for CBCT reconstruction. Performance was investigated in phantom experiments on an experimental CBCT benchtop, and the effect on image quality was demonstrated in patient images (head, abdomen, and pelvis sites) obtained on a preclinical system for CBCT‐guided radiation therapy. The algorithm provides significant reduction in scatter artifacts without compromise in contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR). For example, in a head phantom, cupping artifact was essentially eliminated, CT number accuracy was restored to within 3%, and CNR (breast‐to‐water) was improved by up to 50%. Similarly in a body phantom, cupping artifact was reduced by at least a factor of 2 without loss in CNR. Patient images demonstrate significantly increased uniformity, accuracy, and contrast, with an overall improvement in image quality in all sites investigated. Qualitative evaluation illustrates that soft‐tissue structures that are otherwise undetectable are clearly delineated in scatter‐corrected reconstructions. Since scatter is estimated directly in each projection, the algorithm is robust with respect to system geometry, patient size and heterogeneity, patient motion, etc. Operating without prior information, analytical modeling, or Monte Carlo, the technique is easily incorporated as a preprocessing step in CBCT reconstruction to provide significant scatter reduction.

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 · 10.1118/1.2148916

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Siewerdsen, J. H., Daly, M. J., Bakhtiar, B., Moseley, D. J., Richard, S., Keller, H., & Jaffray, D. A.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-12-27
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
187-197
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2001374473
Cited by
283
References
16
FWCI
9.40
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: A simple, direct method for x‐ray scatter estimation and correction in digital radiography and cone‐beam CT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.2148916
The paper
Siewerdsen, J. H., Daly, M. J., Bakhtiar, B., Moseley, D. J., Richard, S., Keller, H., & Jaffray, D. A. (2006). A simple, direct method for x‐ray scatter estimation and correction in digital radiography and cone‐beam CT. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2148916

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.