Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system

McCollough, Cynthia H., Zink, Frank E.·1999·Medical Physics

Abstract

Our purpose in this study was to characterize the performance of a recently introduced multi-slice CT scanner (LightSpeed QX/i, Version 1.0, General Electric Medical Systems) in comparison to a single-slice scanner from the same manufacturer (HiSpeed CT/i, Version 4.0). To facilitate this comparison, a refined definition of pitch is introduced which accommodates multi-slice CT systems, yet maintains the existing relationships between pitch, patient dose, and image quality. The following performance parameters were assessed: radiation and slice sensitivity profiles, low-contrast and limiting spatial resolution, image uniformity and noise, CT number and geometric accuracy, and dose. The multi-slice system was tested in axial (1, 2, or 4 images per gantry rotation) and HQ (Pitch = 0.75) and HS (Pitch = 1.5) helical modes. Axial and helical acquisition speed and limiting spatial resolution (0.8-s exposure) were improved on the multi-slice system. Slice sensitivity profiles, image noise, CT number accuracy and uniformity, and low-contrast resolution were similar. In some HS-helical modes, helical artifacts and geometric distortion were more pronounced with a different appearance. Radiation slice profiles and doses were larger on the multi-slice system at all scan widths. For a typical abdomen and pelvis exam, the central and surface body doses for 5-mm helical scans were higher on the multi-slice system by approximately 50%. The increase in surface CTDI values (with respect to the single-slice system) was greatest for the 4 x 1.25-mm detector configuration (190% for head, 240% for body) and least for the 4 x 5-mm configuration (53% for head, 76% for body). Preliminary testing of version 1.1 software demonstrated reduced doses on the multi-slice scanner, where the increase in body surface CTDI values (with respect to the single-slice system) was 105% for the 4 x 1.25-mm detector configuration and 10% for the 4 x 5-mm configuration. In summary, the axial and HQ-helical modes of the multi-slice system provided excellent image quality and a substantial reduction in exam time and tube loading, although at varying degrees of increased dose relative to the single-slice scanner.

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 · 10.1118/1.598777

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
McCollough, C. H., & Zink, F. E.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-11
Volume
26
Issue
11
Pages
2223-2230
ISSN
0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069876858
Cited by
386
References
7
FWCI
21.27
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: Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.598777
The paper
McCollough, C. H., & Zink, F. E. (1999). Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598777

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.