Evaluation of CT Devices

  • Robert Cierniak


The production of tomographic images can be regarded as the transformation of the X-ray attenuation coefficient distribution in a patient’s body into a reconstructed image. The final image is produced as a result of a whole chain of processes and is affected by a range of factors including the technical parameters of the scanner, the type of projection system, and finally the type of reconstruction algorithm applied.


Attenuation Coefficient Point Spread Function Modulation Transfer Function Sensitivity Function Tomographic Image 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    AAPM (1977) Phantoms for performance, evaluation and quality assurance of CT scanners. Report No. 1 American Association of Physicists in MedicineGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AAPM (1993) Specification and acceptance testing of computed tomography scanners. Report No. 39, American Association of Physicists in MedicineGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkins FB, Goodenough DJ, Levy JR (1998) A new method to test CT scan plane angulation and rotation relative to a test phantom. Radiol 209(P):285Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Catphan 500 and 600 Manual (2004) The Phantom Laboratory Inc., GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen G, DiBianca FA (1979) The use of contrast-detail-dose evaluation of image quality in a computed tomographic scanner. J Comp Assist Tomogr 3(2):189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Droege RT, Morin RL (1982) A practical method to measure the MTF of CT scanners. Med Phys 9:758–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodenough DJ, Weaver KE, Davis DO (1976) Development of a phantom for evaluation and assurance of image quality. Opt Eng 16:52–65Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodenough DJ, Levy JR, Kasales C (1998) Development of phantom for spiral CT. Comp Med Imag Graph 22:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gunn MLD, Kohr JR (2009) State of the art: technologies for computed tomography dose reduction. Emerg Radiol published online 20 Nov 2009Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kriz RJ, Strauss KJ (1985) An investigation of computed tomography (CT) linearity. Med Imag Instrum SPIE 555:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Möstrom U (1986) Evoluation of CT scanners for use in neuroradiology. Upsala University, UpsalaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rossman K (1969) Point spread function, line spread function and modu-lation transfer function: tools for the study of imaging systems. Radiol 93:257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suess C, Kalender WA, Coman JM (1999) New low-contrast resolution phantoms for computed tomography. Med Phys 26(2):296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringTechnical University of CzestochowaCzestochowaPoland

Personalised recommendations