Artifacts Found During Quality Assurance Testing of Computed Radiography and Digital Radiography Detectors
- 496 Downloads
A series of artifact images, obtained over 5 years of performance testing, of both computed radiography (CR) and integrated digital radiographic X-ray imaging detectors are presented. The images presented are all either flat field or test object images and show artifacts previously either undescribed in the existing literature or meriting further comment. The artifacts described are caused by incorrect flat field corrections, a failing amplifier, damaged detector lines affecting their neighbors, lost information between neighboring detector tiles, image retention, delamination of a detector, poor setup of mechanical movements in CR, suckers damaging a CR plate, inappropriate use of grid suppression software, inappropriate use of a low pass spatial frequency filter, and unsharp masking filters. The causes and significance of the artifacts are explained and categorized as software or hardware related. Actions taken to correct the artifacts are described and explained. This work will help physicists, radiographers, and radiologists identify various image quality problems and shows that quality assurance is useful in identifying artifacts.
Key wordsComputed radiography digital radiology image artifact radiography quality assurance diagnostic image quality
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Nick Marshall of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and Susan Doshi of Bristol Royal Infirmary for their assistance in providing images and explaining the sources of some of the artifacts shown in this paper. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Donald Emerton, Hannah Urbancyzk, and all the staff of the King’s Centre for the Assessment of Radiological Equipment (KCARE) and King’s Radiation Protection service for their assistance with this work.
- 1.Hiles P, Mackenzie A, Scally A, Wall B: IPEM report 91: Recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic x-ray imaging systems, 2005Google Scholar
- 4.Solomon SL, Jost RG, Glazer HS, Sagel SS, Anderson DJ, Molina PL: Artifacts in computed radiography. Am J Roentgenol 157:181–185, 1991Google Scholar
- 5.Volpe JP, Storto ML, Andriole KP, Gamsu G: Artifacts in chest radiographs with a third generation computed radiography system. Am J Roentgenol 166:653–657, 1996Google Scholar
- 7.Willis CE, Thompson SK, Shepard SJ: Artifacts and misadventures in digital radiography. Appl Radiol 33(1):11–20, 2004Google Scholar
- 8.Yorkston J: Flat-panel DR detectors for radiography and fluoroscopy. In: Goldman LW, Yester MV Eds. Specifications, Performance Evaluations, and Quality Assurance of Radiographic and Fluoroscopic Systems in the Digital Era. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, 2004, pp 177–228Google Scholar
- 9.Goldman LW: Inspecting radiographic and fluoroscopic equipment: providing value. In: Goldman LW, Yester MV Eds. Specifications, Performance Evaluations, and Quality Assurance of Radiographic and Fluoroscopic Systems in the Digital Era. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Medical Physics Monograph No. 30. Madison, Wisconsin: Medical Physics Publishing, 2004, pp 299–333 especially p 304Google Scholar
- 11.In: Samei E, Flynn MJ Eds. Advances in Digital Radiography: Categorical Course in Diagnostic Radiology Physics. Oak Brook: RSNA 2003Google Scholar
- 16.EUREF: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th edition, European Commission, 2006, ISBN: 92-79-01258-4Google Scholar