Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hiles P, Mackenzie A, Scally A, Wall B: IPEM report 91: Recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic x-ray imaging systems, 2005
Cesar LJ, Schueler BA, Zink FE, Daly TR, Taubel JP, Jorgenson LL: Artifacts found in computed radiography. Br J Radiol 74:195–202, 2001
Oestmann JW, Prokop M, Schaefer CM, Galanski M: Hardware and software artifacts in storage phosphor radiography. Radiographics 11:795–805, 1991
Solomon SL, Jost RG, Glazer HS, Sagel SS, Anderson DJ, Molina PL: Artifacts in computed radiography. Am J Roentgenol 157:181–185, 1991
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, 1996
Hammerstrom K, Aldrich J, Alves L, Ho A: Recognition and prevention of computed radiography image artifacts. J Digit Imaging 19:226–239, 2006
Willis CE, Thompson SK, Shepard SJ: Artifacts and misadventures in digital radiography. Appl Radiol 33(1):11–20, 2004
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 177–228
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 304
Seibert JA, Boone JM, Lindfors KK: Flat-field correction technique for digital detectors. Proc SPIE 3336:348–354, 1998
In: Samei E, Flynn MJ Eds. Advances in Digital Radiography: Categorical Course in Diagnostic Radiology Physics. Oak Brook: RSNA 2003
Padgett R, Kotre CJ: Assessment of the effects of pixel loss on image quality in direct digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 49:977–986, 2004
Siewerdsen JH, Jaffray DA: A ghost story: Spatio-temporal response characteristics of an indirect-detection flat-panel imager. Med Phys 26:1624–1641, 1999
Kabir MZ, Yunus M, Kasap SO: Dependence of x-ray sensitivity of direct conversion x-ray detectors on x-ray exposure and exposure history. Proc SPIE 5368:170–176, 2004
Zhao W, DeCrescenzo G, Rowlands JA: Investigation of lag and ghosting in amorphous selenium flat-panel x-ray detectors. Proc SPIE 4682:9–20, 2002
EUREF: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th edition, European Commission, 2006, ISBN: 92-79-01258-4
Mackenzie A, Honey ID: Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors. Med Phys 34(8):3345–3357, 2007
Samei E, Flynn MJ: An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. Med Phys 30(4):608–622, 2003
Albert M, Beideck DJ, Bakic PR, Maidment ADA: Aliasing effects in digital images of line pair phantoms. Med Phys 29(8):1716–1718, 2002
Kengyelics SM, Launders JH, Cowen AR: Physical imaging performance of a compact computed radiography acquisition device. Med Phys 25:354–360, 1998
Acknowledgments
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Honey, I.D., Mackenzie, A. Artifacts Found During Quality Assurance Testing of Computed Radiography and Digital Radiography Detectors. J Digit Imaging 22, 383–392 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-008-9109-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-008-9109-0