Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Image quality in cranial computed tomography.

L M Zatz

    Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
    |July 1, 1978
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Comparing first and second generation cranial computed tomography (CT) scanners reveals minimal image quality differences at similar radiation doses. Artifacts, not resolution or noise, were the primary distinguishing factor between scanners.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Scalp lipogranuloma due to dermal lipid injections: CT and MR findings.

    AJR. American journal of roentgenology·1995
    Same author

    Computed tomographic evidence for generalized sulcal and ventricular enlargement in schizophrenia.

    Archives of general psychiatry·1988
    Same author

    CT detection of a Jefferson fracture in a child.

    AJR. American journal of roentgenology·1987
    Same author

    Computer-interactive method for quantifying cerebrospinal fluid and tissue in brain CT scans: effects of aging.

    Journal of computer assisted tomography·1986
    Same author

    Neurologic dysfunction in patients treated for small cell carcinoma of the lung: a clinical and radiological study.

    International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics·1986
    Same author

    Pseudocyst of spinal cord on metrizamide ct.

    AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology·1984
    Same journal

    Low-Field Neuroimaging: Opportunities and Limitations.

    Journal of computer assisted tomography·2026
    Same journal

    Diagnostic Performance of Routine Abdominal MRI for Detecting Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in ADPKD.

    Journal of computer assisted tomography·2026
    Same journal

    Evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI With Diffusion and Clinicopathologic Features for Predicting Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

    Journal of computer assisted tomography·2026
    Same journal

    Artificial Intelligence for Opportunistic Screening for Osteoporosis and Spine Fractures Using Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

    Journal of computer assisted tomography·2026
    Same journal

    Accuracy and Variability of Spatial Localization of Infarct Core Predicted by CT Perfusion.

    Journal of computer assisted tomography·2026
    Same journal

    Acute Biliary Disorders and Complications.

    Journal of computer assisted tomography·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Medical Imaging
    • Radiology
    • Computed Tomography

    Background:

    • Assessing image quality is crucial for diagnostic accuracy in cranial computed tomography (CT).
    • Advancements in CT technology aim to improve image quality and reduce artifacts.
    • Comparing different scanner generations is essential for understanding technological progress.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To evaluate and compare the image quality of first (single beam) and second (multiple beam) generation cranial CT scanners.
    • To identify key differences in image performance, focusing on resolution, noise, and artifact generation.
    • To determine the factors most influencing image quality between the two scanner types.

    Main Methods:

    • Phantom and patient studies were conducted on both first and second generation CT scanners.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Image quality parameters including resolution, low contrast detectability, and noise levels were assessed.
  • Patient studies specifically analyzed contrast-material-filled vessel visibility and gray-white matter distinction.

    • Main Results:

    • Minor differences in resolution, low contrast detectability, and noise were observed at comparable radiation doses.
    • Noise patterns varied slightly between scanners relative to measurement area size.
    • Artifacts, including motion, beam hardening, and edge enhancement, were identified as the major differentiating factor in image quality.

    Conclusions:

    • Artifact production is a more significant factor in cranial CT image quality than resolution or noise levels when comparing these scanner generations.
    • Further quantitative studies on noise quality and artifact production are necessary for comprehensive CT image quality assessment.
    • While minor differences exist, artifacts represent a key area for improvement in CT scanner technology.