BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2006) 79, 62-70
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/50019934
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Iball, G R
Right arrow Articles by Moore, A C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iball, G R
Right arrow Articles by Moore, A C

Assessment of tube current modulation in pelvic CT

G R Iball, MSc, DipIPEM, D S Brettle, PhD and A C Moore, MSc, DipIPEM

Department of Medical Physics & Engineering, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK


Figure 1
View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the hip phantom. Solid cylinders within the phantom (1) represent the five ion chamber positions, dashed circles within the phantom (2) represent the five polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) CT number and noise measurement positions; the dashed circle outside the phantom (3) represents the air CT number measurement position.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (80K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. The phantom as positioned for the dose and noise measurements.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (119K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. The phantom as set up for the water signal to noise ratio (SNR) measurements.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (29K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Variation of absorbed dose to air with position in phantom.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (7K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 5. Percentage reduction in "CTDIvol" against pitch setting.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (9K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 6. Reduction in absorbed dose to air in the central position against initial effective mAs setting.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 7. Variation of image percentage noise with position in the phantom.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (8K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 8. Image percentage noise variation with pitch setting.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (8K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 9. Signal to noise ratios (SNR) for polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) for each phantom position.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (9K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 10. Signal to noise ratios (SNR) for water for each phantom position.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.