CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Advanced X-ray and CT ImagingRadiation Dose and ImagingMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monte Carlo study of the effects of system geometry and antiscatter grids on cone‐beam CT scatter distributions

Open access
Sisniega, A., Zbijewski, W., Badal, A., Kyprianou, I. S., Stayman, J. W., Vaquero, J. J., Siewerdsen, J. H.·2013·Medical Physics
DOI 10.1118/1.4801895PMC PMC3651212
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: The proliferation of cone‐beam CT (CBCT) has created interest in performance optimization, with x‐ray scatter identified among the main limitations to image quality. CBCT often contends with elevated scatter, but the wide variety of imaging geometry in different CBCT configurations suggests that not all configurations are affected to the same extent. Graphics processing unit (GPU) accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are employed over a range of imaging geometries to elucidate the factors governing scatter characteristics, efficacy of antiscatter grids, guide system design, and augment development of scatter correction. Methods: A MC x‐ray simulator implemented on GPU was accelerated by inclusion of variance reduction techniques (interaction splitting, forced scattering, and forced detection) and extended to include x‐ray spectra and analytical models of antiscatter grids and flat‐panel detectors. The simulator was applied to small animal (SA), musculoskeletal (MSK) extremity, otolaryngology (Head), breast, interventional C‐arm, and on‐board (kilovoltage) linear accelerator (Linac) imaging, with an axis‐to‐detector distance (ADD) of 5, 12, 22, 32, 60, and 50 cm, respectively. Each configuration was modeled with and without an antiscatter grid and with (i) an elliptical cylinder varying 70–280 mm in major axis; and (ii) digital murine and anthropomorphic models. The effects of scatter were evaluated in terms of the angular distribution of scatter incident upon the detector, scatter‐to‐primary ratio (SPR), artifact magnitude, contrast, contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), and visual assessment. Results: Variance reduction yielded improvements in MC simulation efficiency ranging from ∼17‐fold (for SA CBCT) to ∼35‐fold (for Head and C‐arm), with the most significant acceleration due to interaction splitting (∼6 to ∼10‐fold increase in efficiency). The benefit of a more extended geometry was evident by virtue of a larger air gap—e.g., for a 16 cm diameter object, the SPR reduced from 1.5 for ADD = 12 cm (MSK geometry) to 1.1 for ADD = 22 cm (Head) and to 0.5 for ADD = 60 cm (C‐arm). Grid efficiency was higher for configurations with shorter air gap due to a broader angular distribution of scattered photons—e.g., scatter rejection factor ∼0.8 for MSK geometry versus ∼0.65 for C‐arm. Grids reduced cupping for all configurations but had limited improvement on scatter‐induced streaks and resulted in a loss of CNR for the SA, Breast, and C‐arm. Relative contribution of forward‐directed scatter increased with a grid (e.g., Rayleigh scatter fraction increasing from ∼0.15 without a grid to ∼0.25 with a grid for the MSK configuration), resulting in scatter distributions with greater spatial variation (the form of which depended on grid orientation). Conclusions: A fast MC simulator combining GPU acceleration with variance reduction provided a systematic examination of a range of CBCT configurations in relation to scatter, highlighting the magnitude and spatial uniformity of individual scatter components, illustrating tradeoffs in CNR and artifacts and identifying the system geometries for which grids are more beneficial (e.g., MSK) from those in which an extended geometry is the better defense (e.g., C‐arm head imaging). Compact geometries with an antiscatter grid challenge assumptions of slowly varying scatter distributions due to increased contribution of Rayleigh scatter.

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 · 10.1118/1.4801895

Cites

75 of 75 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Woodcock E., 1965, Proc. Conference on the Application of Computing Methods to Reactor Problems, 557

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sisniega, A., Zbijewski, W., Badal, A., Kyprianou, I. S., Stayman, J. W., Vaquero, J. J., & Siewerdsen, J. H.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
  • Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (ES)
Corresponding author
Zbijewski, W.
ORCID
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-04-25
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
051915-051915
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
DOI
10.1118/1.4801895
PMC
PMC3651212
OpenAlex
W2017401048
Cited by
117
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • e-Archivo (Carlos III University of Madrid) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2R01‐CA‐112163, 2R01-CA-112163)
  • Spanish Ministry of Education (TEC2010-21619-C04-01)
  • AMIT (TEC2011-28972-C02-01, PI11/00616)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cone-beam computed tomography, X-ray scattering, anti-scatter grid, image geometry, air gap, scatter-to-primary ratio, scatter correction, variance reduction, interaction splitting, cupping artifacts, small animal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, C-arm imaging, breast imaging
MeSH terms
Animals, Computer Graphics, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Scattering, Radiation, Phantoms, Imaging, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Signal-To-Noise Ratio

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