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

Beam hardening errors in post-processing dual energy quantitative computed tomography

M M Goodsitt1

  • 1Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109-0030, USA.

Medical Physics
|July 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Assessment of calibration methods for estimating bone mineral densities in trauma patients with quantitative CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study.

Academic radiology·2001
Same author

Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms.

Medical physics·2001
Same author

Digital mammography: observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications.

Academic radiology·2001
Same author

Stereomammography: evaluation of depth perception using a virtual 3D cursor.

Medical physics·2000
Same author

Design and evaluation of an external filter technique for exposure equalization in mammography.

Medical physics·1999
Same author

Design of a high-sensitivity classifier based on a genetic algorithm: application to computer-aided diagnosis.

Physics in medicine and biology·1998
Same journal

Correction to "On the shape of the radiation survival curve in tumor spheroids: The role of oxygen heterogeneity".

Medical physics·2026
Same journal

Multi-view constrained semi-supervised vertebra detection for 3D ultrasound spine volume.

Medical physics·2026
Same journal

Accuracy of quantitative <sup>177</sup>Lu SPECT/CT imaging: A systematic review.

Medical physics·2026
Same journal

Physics-constrained dual-domain network for CBCT reconstruction from orthogonal X-rays in gynecologic radiotherapy.

Medical physics·2026
Same journal

Decomposition-based harmonization for quantitative PET imaging across scanners and radiotracers.

Medical physics·2026
Same journal

Development and evaluation of an in vivo dose-based monitoring system for electron FLASH radiation therapy.

Medical physics·2026
See all related articles

Computer simulations show that patient size mismatches with calibration phantoms cause errors in dual-energy quantitative CT (DEQCT) fat and bone estimates. These beam hardening artifacts persist even with optimized calibration methods.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Physics
  • Radiological Imaging
  • Biomedical Engineering

Background:

  • Dual-energy quantitative computed tomography (DEQCT) is used for estimating tissue composition.
  • X-ray beam hardening can introduce errors in DEQCT-based fat and bone quantification.
  • The central calibration method aims to reduce these errors by using calibration standards within a phantom.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the impact of patient size mismatches on DEQCT fat and bone estimates.
  • To quantify errors introduced by x-ray beam hardening in DEQCT.
  • To evaluate the effectiveness of the central calibration method under varying phantom-patient size discrepancies.

Main Methods:

  • Computer simulations of DEQCT were performed.
  • Calibration standards (bone, fat, marrow) were inserted into torso phantoms.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Two mismatch scenarios were simulated: one-size-fits-all and best-fit phantom sizes.
  • Simulations covered 15 patient sizes (20-34 cm diameter) with known bone/marrow compositions.

    • Main Results:

    • X-ray beam hardening errors in fat and bone estimates were observed.
    • Errors persisted despite using the central calibration method.
    • The magnitude of errors varied with the degree of mismatch between phantom and patient sizes.
    • Effective x-ray beam energies ranged from 54.3-56.4 keV (80 kVp) and 74.4-78.8 keV (140 kVp).

    Conclusions:

    • Patient size variations relative to calibration phantoms introduce significant errors in DEQCT.
    • The central calibration method does not fully eliminate beam hardening artifacts.
    • Accurate DEQCT composition analysis requires careful consideration of patient size and phantom matching.