Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2017.22.2.227

Effects of Physical Factors on Computed Tomography Image Quality  

Jeon, Min-Cheol (Department of Radiology, Daejeon Health Institute of Technology)
Han, Man-Seok (Department of Radiological Science, Kangwon National University)
Jang, Jae-Uk (Department of Radiation Oncology, Chungnam National University Hospital, Department of Health Medical Science, Graduate School, Kangwon National University)
Kim, Dong-Young (Department of Biomedical Engineering, Chungnam National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Magnetics / v.22, no.2, 2017 , pp. 227-233 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of X-ray photon energy, tissue density, and the kernel essential for image reconstruction on the image quality by measuring HU and noise. Images were obtained by scanning the RMI density phantom within the CT device, and HU and noise were measured as follows: images were obtained by varying the tube voltages, the tube currents and eight different kernels. The greater the voltage-dependent change in the HU value but the noise was decreased. At all densities, changes in the tube current did not exert any significant influence on the HU value, whereas the noise value gradually decreased as the tube current increased. At all densities, changes in the kernel did not exert any significant influence on the HU value. The noise value gradually increased in the lower kernel range, but rapidly increased in the higher kernel range. HU is influenced by voltage and density, and noise is influenced by voltage, current, kernel, and density. This affects contrast resolution and spatial resolution.
Keywords
Hounsfield unit (HU); noise; kernel; tube voltage; tube current; density;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 E. Gallagher, T. Lukens, S. Colussiello, D. Morgan, S. Cantrill, and M. Campbell, Ann. Emerg. Med. 36, 406 (2000).   DOI
2 B. Siewert, V. Raptopoulos, M. F. Mueller, M. P. Rosen, and M. Steer, Am. J. Roentgenol. 168, 173 (1997).   DOI
3 R. K. Zeman, S. H. Fox, P. M. Silverman, W. J. Davros, L. M. Carter, and D. Griego, Am. J. Roentgenol. 160, 719 (1993).   DOI
4 M. C. Jeon, M. S. Han, J. U. Jang, Y. K. Kim, S. Y. Seo, and G. J. Kim, Cluster Comput. 19, 931 (2016).   DOI
5 H. C. Jang, Y. S. Kim, and H. J. Kim, J. The Korea Academia- Industrial Cooperation Soc. 15, 1584 (2014).   DOI
6 G. N. Hounsfield, Br. J. Radiol. 68, H166 (1995).
7 E. J. Balthazar, A. J. Megibow, D. Hulnick, D. P. Naidich, Am. J. Roentgenol. 150, 301 (1988).   DOI
8 H. M. Lee, B. G. Yoo, and D. C. Keon, J. Radiological Science and Technol. 31, 71 (2008).
9 K. Ogden, W. Huda, E. M. Scalzetti, and M. L. Roskopf, Health Phys. 86, 397 (2004).   DOI
10 S. W. Lee, H. J. Kim, T. H. Kim, S. J. Jo, and C. L. Lee, J. Med. Phys. 20, 145 (2009).
11 S. K. Kang, B. C. Cho, H. C. Park, and H. S. Bae, J. Med. Phys. 15, 23 (2004).
12 J. U. Jang, M. S. Han, M. J. Kim, and H. S. Kang, J. Magn. 26, 173 (2016).
13 Y. Watanabe, Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 2201 (1999).   DOI
14 Chung-ku Publishing, Textbook of Computed Tomography, Korea (2009) pp. 47-75.
15 S. M. Ha, S. H. Jung, H. J. Chang, E. A. Park, and H. J. Shim, J. Progress in Med. Phys. 26, 28 (2015).   DOI