SU‐E‐I‐186: Digital Radiography Artifacts

A. Walz‐flannigan, T. Daly, D. Magnuson, D. Erickson, B. Schueler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Recent and rapid development in digital radiography (DR) systems has led to greater flexibility in DR usage. With new DR uses, new processing algorithms, new acquisition tools and methods we see new artifacts, and some old artifacts with new presentations. In this poster we present a host of DR artifacts and their explanations, along with tips for identifying or avoiding them. Methods: DR artifacts were collected over the course of several years from four different vendor equipment models used for routine chest, general and portable radiography. Both fixed and wireless indirect flat panel detector images are included. The acquisition conditions for each image are described or approximated from knowledge of standard acquisition techniques. Results: Artifact examples in our poster include those due to: image lag, flawed gain calibration, image‐lag + flawed dark‐noise correction, backscatter through a portable detector and stitching issues. The underlying physics which contributed to each artifact is explained to the degree that is possible without knowledge of proprietary vendor algorithms and techniques. Several of the artifacts presented had the potential to impact diagnosis. Suggested techniques for preventing the artifacts or quality control steps to avoid such artifact formation are also provided. Conclusions: Before purchasing a DR system, upgrading to DR, or using DR, it is important to be aware of its limitations, some of which result in image artifact formation. In this poster, we present several example artifacts which have not previously received attention, are unique to DR, or present differently than in computed radiography (CR). Knowledge of how these artifacts form, their frequency and severity are important considerations for DR use, selection, acceptance testing and quality control.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3439
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Radiographic Image Enhancement
Artifacts
Posters
Radiography
Quality Control
Physics
Calibration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Walz‐flannigan, A., Daly, T., Magnuson, D., Erickson, D., & Schueler, B. (2011). SU‐E‐I‐186: Digital Radiography Artifacts. Medical Physics, 38(6), 3439. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3611760

SU‐E‐I‐186 : Digital Radiography Artifacts. / Walz‐flannigan, A.; Daly, T.; Magnuson, D.; Erickson, D.; Schueler, B.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2011, p. 3439.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Walz‐flannigan, A, Daly, T, Magnuson, D, Erickson, D & Schueler, B 2011, 'SU‐E‐I‐186: Digital Radiography Artifacts', Medical Physics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3439. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3611760
Walz‐flannigan A, Daly T, Magnuson D, Erickson D, Schueler B. SU‐E‐I‐186: Digital Radiography Artifacts. Medical Physics. 2011;38(6):3439. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3611760
Walz‐flannigan, A. ; Daly, T. ; Magnuson, D. ; Erickson, D. ; Schueler, B. / SU‐E‐I‐186 : Digital Radiography Artifacts. In: Medical Physics. 2011 ; Vol. 38, No. 6. pp. 3439.
@article{ffed31c599854015b48f7aacdc58be2b,
title = "SU‐E‐I‐186: Digital Radiography Artifacts",
abstract = "Purpose: Recent and rapid development in digital radiography (DR) systems has led to greater flexibility in DR usage. With new DR uses, new processing algorithms, new acquisition tools and methods we see new artifacts, and some old artifacts with new presentations. In this poster we present a host of DR artifacts and their explanations, along with tips for identifying or avoiding them. Methods: DR artifacts were collected over the course of several years from four different vendor equipment models used for routine chest, general and portable radiography. Both fixed and wireless indirect flat panel detector images are included. The acquisition conditions for each image are described or approximated from knowledge of standard acquisition techniques. Results: Artifact examples in our poster include those due to: image lag, flawed gain calibration, image‐lag + flawed dark‐noise correction, backscatter through a portable detector and stitching issues. The underlying physics which contributed to each artifact is explained to the degree that is possible without knowledge of proprietary vendor algorithms and techniques. Several of the artifacts presented had the potential to impact diagnosis. Suggested techniques for preventing the artifacts or quality control steps to avoid such artifact formation are also provided. Conclusions: Before purchasing a DR system, upgrading to DR, or using DR, it is important to be aware of its limitations, some of which result in image artifact formation. In this poster, we present several example artifacts which have not previously received attention, are unique to DR, or present differently than in computed radiography (CR). Knowledge of how these artifacts form, their frequency and severity are important considerations for DR use, selection, acceptance testing and quality control.",
author = "A. Walz‐flannigan and T. Daly and D. Magnuson and D. Erickson and B. Schueler",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1118/1.3611760",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "3439",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐I‐186

T2 - Digital Radiography Artifacts

AU - Walz‐flannigan, A.

AU - Daly, T.

AU - Magnuson, D.

AU - Erickson, D.

AU - Schueler, B.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose: Recent and rapid development in digital radiography (DR) systems has led to greater flexibility in DR usage. With new DR uses, new processing algorithms, new acquisition tools and methods we see new artifacts, and some old artifacts with new presentations. In this poster we present a host of DR artifacts and their explanations, along with tips for identifying or avoiding them. Methods: DR artifacts were collected over the course of several years from four different vendor equipment models used for routine chest, general and portable radiography. Both fixed and wireless indirect flat panel detector images are included. The acquisition conditions for each image are described or approximated from knowledge of standard acquisition techniques. Results: Artifact examples in our poster include those due to: image lag, flawed gain calibration, image‐lag + flawed dark‐noise correction, backscatter through a portable detector and stitching issues. The underlying physics which contributed to each artifact is explained to the degree that is possible without knowledge of proprietary vendor algorithms and techniques. Several of the artifacts presented had the potential to impact diagnosis. Suggested techniques for preventing the artifacts or quality control steps to avoid such artifact formation are also provided. Conclusions: Before purchasing a DR system, upgrading to DR, or using DR, it is important to be aware of its limitations, some of which result in image artifact formation. In this poster, we present several example artifacts which have not previously received attention, are unique to DR, or present differently than in computed radiography (CR). Knowledge of how these artifacts form, their frequency and severity are important considerations for DR use, selection, acceptance testing and quality control.

AB - Purpose: Recent and rapid development in digital radiography (DR) systems has led to greater flexibility in DR usage. With new DR uses, new processing algorithms, new acquisition tools and methods we see new artifacts, and some old artifacts with new presentations. In this poster we present a host of DR artifacts and their explanations, along with tips for identifying or avoiding them. Methods: DR artifacts were collected over the course of several years from four different vendor equipment models used for routine chest, general and portable radiography. Both fixed and wireless indirect flat panel detector images are included. The acquisition conditions for each image are described or approximated from knowledge of standard acquisition techniques. Results: Artifact examples in our poster include those due to: image lag, flawed gain calibration, image‐lag + flawed dark‐noise correction, backscatter through a portable detector and stitching issues. The underlying physics which contributed to each artifact is explained to the degree that is possible without knowledge of proprietary vendor algorithms and techniques. Several of the artifacts presented had the potential to impact diagnosis. Suggested techniques for preventing the artifacts or quality control steps to avoid such artifact formation are also provided. Conclusions: Before purchasing a DR system, upgrading to DR, or using DR, it is important to be aware of its limitations, some of which result in image artifact formation. In this poster, we present several example artifacts which have not previously received attention, are unique to DR, or present differently than in computed radiography (CR). Knowledge of how these artifacts form, their frequency and severity are important considerations for DR use, selection, acceptance testing and quality control.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024783657&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024783657&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3611760

DO - 10.1118/1.3611760

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024783657

VL - 38

SP - 3439

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -