Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025

High Spatial Resolution Chemical Imaging of Implant-Associated Infections with X-ray Excited Luminescence Chemical Imaging Through Tissue
Published on: September 30, 2022
Seven general radiography x-ray detectors with pixel sizes ranging from 175 to 76μm: technical evaluation with the
N W Marshall1,2,3, D Vandenbroucke3, L Cockmartin1
1UZ Gasthuisberg, Department of Radiology, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract:
Aim. Flat panel detectors with small pixel sizes general can potentially improve imaging performance in radiography applications requiring fine detail resolution. This study evaluated the imaging performance of seven detectors, covering a wide range of pixel sizes, in the frame of orthopaedic applications.Material and methods. Pixel sizes ranged from 175 (detector A175) to 76μm (detector G76). Modulation transfer function (MTF) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) were measured using International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) RQA3 beam quality. Threshold contrast (CT) and a detectability index (d') were measured at three air kerma/image levels. Rabbit shoulder images acquired at 60 kV, over five air kerma levels, were evaluated in a visual grading study for anatomical sharpness, image noise and overall diagnostic image quality by four radiologists. The detectors were compared to detector E124.Results. The 10% point of the MTF ranged from 3.21 to 4.80 mm-1, in going from detector A175to detector G76. DQE(0.5 mm-1) measured at 2.38μGy/image was 0.50 ± 0.05 for six detectors, but was higher for F100at 0.62. High frequency DQE was superior for the smaller pixel detectors, howeverCTfor 0.25 mm discs correlated best with DQE(0.5 mm-1). Correlation betweenCTand the detectability model was good (R2= 0.964).CTfor 0.25 mm diameter discs was significantly higher for D150and F100compared to E124. The visual grading data revealed higher image quality ratings for detectors D125and F100compared to E124. An increase in air kerma was associated with improved perceived sharpness and overall quality score, independent of detector. Detectors B150, D125, F100and G76, performed well in specific tests, however only F100consistently outperformed the reference detector.Conclusion. Pixel size alone was not a reliable predictor of small detail detectability or even perceived sharpness in a visual grading analysis study.
More Related Videos
07:013D Imaging of Soft-Tissue Samples using an X-ray Specific Staining Method and Nanoscopic Computed Tomography
Published on: October 24, 2019
10:24Neutron Radiography and Computed Tomography of Biological Systems at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's High Flux Isotope Reactor
Published on: May 7, 2021