[vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space]
A simple method for calibrating pixel values of the CT localizer radiograph for calculating water-equivalent diameter and size-specific dose estimate
Anam C.a,b, Fujibuchi T.c, Toyoda T.c, Sato N.c, Haryanto F.b, Widita R.b, Arif I.b, Dougherty G.d
a Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Central Java, 50275, Indonesia
b Department of Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Bandung Institute of Technology, Ganesha 10, Bandung, West Java, 40132, Indonesia
c Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan
d Applied Physics and Medical Imaging, California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, 93012, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624529070653{padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;}”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner layout=”boxed”][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1624695412187{border-right-width: 1px !important;border-right-color: #dddddd !important;border-right-style: solid !important;border-radius: 1px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Abstract” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.The purpose of this study is to establish the relationship between the pixel value (I) of the CT localizer radiograph and waterequivalent thickness (tw) in a straightforward procedure. We used a body CTDI phantom, which was scanned in the AP and LAT projections. After transformation from the pixel values of the images to tw, water-equivalent diameter (Dw) and sizespecific dose estimate were calculated on an anthropomorphic phantom and 30 patients retrospectively. We found a linear correlation between I and tw, with R2 ≥ 0.980. The Dw values based on the CT localizer radiograph were comparable to those calculated using axial images. The Dw difference for the anthropomorphic phantom between AP projection and axial images was 5.4 ± 4.2%, and between LAT projection and axial images was 6.7 ± 5.3%. The Dw differences for the patients between CT localizer radiograph and axial images was 2.3 ± 3.2%.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Author keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]Adult,Calibration,Female,Humans,Male,Phantoms, Imaging,Radiation Dosage,Retrospective Studies,Tomography, X-Ray Computed,Water[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Indexed keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Funding details” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]This work was supported by the Research and Innovation Program, Bandung Institute of Technology. Grant number 006n/I1.C01/PL/2016.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”DOI” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncx241[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]Widget Plumx[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row]