Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 1, 2026

09:30
Introducing an Angle Adjustable Cutting Box for Analyzing Slice Shear Force in Meat
Published on: April 26, 2013
12.6K
Evaluation of techniques for slice sensitivity profile measurement and analysis
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. sratgreene@yahoo.com.
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
|April 9, 2014
Summary
This study found that the maximum ROI value is best for generating slice sensitivity profiles (SSP) for accurate full width at half maximum (FWHM) measurements in CT scans. Phantom type did not significantly impact FWHM results.
Area of Science:
- Medical Physics
- Radiological Imaging
- Diagnostic Imaging Technology
Background:
- Accurate measurement of slice sensitivity profiles (SSP) is crucial for quantitative analysis in computed tomography (CT).
- The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the SSP is a key parameter for assessing image spatial resolution and slice thickness accuracy.
- Variations in phantom design and analysis methods can potentially influence SSP and FWHM measurements.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of slice sensitivity profiles (SSP) generated using different commercially available CT phantoms.
- To evaluate and determine the most appropriate imaging technique and analysis method for SSP and FWHM determination.
- To assess the impact of different region of interest (ROI) values and FWHM calculation methods on measurement accuracy.
Main Methods:
- Four CT phantoms (Fluke CT-SSP, Gammex 464, CatPhan 600, Kagaku Micro Disc) were imaged using standardized CT parameters (120 kVp, 325 mAs, head FOV, helical scan).
- Images were reconstructed across various slice thicknesses (0.625 mm - 5.0 mm).
- A custom computer program analyzed images to generate SSPs and determine FWHM using mean vs. maximum ROI values and linear interpolation vs. Gaussian curve fitting.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in FWHM were found between the four phantoms (p ≥ 0.089), with an average error of 3.5% compared to manufacturer specifications.
- Using the mean ROI value resulted in statistically different FWHMs (p ≤ 3.99 × 10¹³), whereas different FWHM calculation methods showed no significant difference (p ≤ 0.499).
- SSP evaluation is dependent on the ROI value chosen; the maximum ROI value is recommended for generating SSPs.
Conclusions:
- CT phantom type does not significantly affect SSP FWHM measurements when using appropriate analysis methods.
- The maximum ROI value should be preferentially used for SSP generation to ensure reliable FWHM determination.
- SSP measurement is robust and independent of the specific phantom utilized in this study, highlighting the importance of standardized analysis protocols.

