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

Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends

J A Seibert1, D K Shelton, E H Moore

  • 1Department of Radiology, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento 95817, USA.

Academic Radiology
|April 1, 1996
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

Observation Versus Neck Dissection for Residual, PET-Negative Lymphadenopathy After Chemoradiotherapy for Head-and-Neck Cancer.

Practical radiation oncology·2014
Same author

Zinner's Syndrome.

World journal of nuclear medicine·2011
Same author

A Figure of Merit Comparison between Bremsstrahlung and Monoenergetic X-Ray Sources for Angiography.

Journal of X-ray science and technology·2011
Same author

The induction of macrophage foam cell formation by chylomicron remnants.

Biochemical Society transactions·2007
Same author

Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I.

Medical physics·2006
Same author

Cassette-based digital mammography.

Technology in cancer research & treatment·2004
Same journal

MRI-based Predictors and Risk Constellations of Chronic Ankle Instability After Acute Lateral Ankle Sprain: A Multicenter Study.

Academic radiology·2026
Same journal

Early Prediction of Pathological Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer using a Longitudinal US-based Stack-model.

Academic radiology·2026
Same journal

Evaluating the Impact of Embolization on Outcomes in Iliopsoas Hematomas: A Multicenter Retrospective Propensity-matched Study.

Academic radiology·2026
Same journal

Comparison of Iterative Metal Artifact Reduction Presets In Ultra-high-resolution Photon-counting CT Angiography of Patients with Total Knee Endoprosthesis.

Academic radiology·2026
Same journal

Deep Learning for Opportunistic Vertebral Fracture Detection on Routine Thoraco-abdominal Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Meta-analysis of Patient-level Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

Academic radiology·2026
Same journal

"Where are They Now?": A Single Institution's 10-Years Experience with an Integrated Nuclear Radiology Fellowship.

Academic radiology·2026
See all related articles

Computed radiography (CR) offers flexibility but requires careful technique to avoid underexposure and maintain image quality. Optimal CR exposure settings are crucial for diagnostic accuracy and minimizing radiation dose.

Area of Science:

  • Radiologic Technology
  • Medical Imaging Physics

Background:

  • Computed radiography (CR) systems offer wide dynamic range, but improper exposure can lead to suboptimal image quality.
  • Conventional screen-film detectors have established exposure techniques that differ from CR.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate radiation exposure trends in CR over two years for portable chest examinations.
  • To compare CR radiographic techniques with conventional screen-film detectors.

Main Methods:

  • A Fuji CR system was used, tracking usage and sensitivity numbers.
  • Sensitivity number, inversely related to exposure, was analyzed to assess technique.
  • Hard-copy films were used for diagnosis.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Initial CR use showed wide exposure variations, with underexposure complaints leading to overexposure.
  • Quality control and feedback tightened exposure distribution to optimal ranges.
  • Average CR technique approximated a 200-speed system.

    • Conclusions:

    • CR's dynamic range and rescaling reduce repeat exams, but underexposure causes quantum mottle.
    • Overexposure necessitates audits to limit radiation.
    • Optimal CR exposure is higher than conventional 400-speed systems for subtle findings.
    • Radiation dose reduction with CR is not guaranteed compared to screen-film.