HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Irie, T. Articles by Inoue, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Irie, T. Articles by Inoue, H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Individual Modulation of the Tube Current–Seconds to Achieve Similar Levels of Image Noise in Contrast-Enhanced Abdominal CT

¹ Both authors: Department of Radiology, Hitachi General Hospital, Jyonanncho 2-1-1, Hitachi City, Ibaraki 317-0077, Japan.

View larger version (178K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. —Placement of region of interest (ROI) and distance measurement on scout image. Elliptic ROI was placed at level of liver hilus. Scout value and transverse diameter were measured.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2A. —Relationships between aortic image noise and body size. Scatterplots show relationships calculated on basis of body weight (A) as y = –1.42 – 0.013 x x; R2 = 0.619 and scout image data (B); y = –0.411 – 0.016 x x; R2 = 0.812. Vertical axis indicates Ln[1 / (aortic image noise)2]. Coefficient of determination (R2) was higher when body size was evaluated on basis of scout image data.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2B. —Relationships between aortic image noise and body size. Scatterplots show relationships calculated on basis of body weight (A) as y = –1.42 – 0.013 x x; R2 = 0.619 and scout image data (B); y = –0.411 – 0.016 x x; R2 = 0.812. Vertical axis indicates Ln[1 / (aortic image noise)2]. Coefficient of determination (R2) was higher when body size was evaluated on basis of scout image data.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3A. —Aortic image noise of CT. Scatterplots show aortic image noise of CT obtained by fixed tube current–second milliampere-seconds (mAs) (A), by mAs modulation based on body weight (B), and by mAs modulation based on scout image data (C). SDs of aortic image noise were 2.03 (A), 1.61 (B), and 1.06 (C), respectively. SD of image noise was minimized with statistically significant differences when mAs was modulated on basis of scout image data (C) (p < 0.022, F test). Coefficients of determination (R2) were 0.644 (A), 0.047 (B), and 0.03 (C).

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3B. —Aortic image noise of CT. Scatterplots show aortic image noise of CT obtained by fixed tube current–second milliampere-seconds (mAs) (A), by mAs modulation based on body weight (B), and by mAs modulation based on scout image data (C). SDs of aortic image noise were 2.03 (A), 1.61 (B), and 1.06 (C), respectively. SD of image noise was minimized with statistically significant differences when mAs was modulated on basis of scout image data (C) (p < 0.022, F test). Coefficients of determination (R2) were 0.644 (A), 0.047 (B), and 0.03 (C).

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3C. —Aortic image noise of CT. Scatterplots show aortic image noise of CT obtained by fixed tube current–second milliampere-seconds (mAs) (A), by mAs modulation based on body weight (B), and by mAs modulation based on scout image data (C). SDs of aortic image noise were 2.03 (A), 1.61 (B), and 1.06 (C), respectively. SD of image noise was minimized with statistically significant differences when mAs was modulated on basis of scout image data (C) (p < 0.022, F test). Coefficients of determination (R2) were 0.644 (A), 0.047 (B), and 0.03 (C).

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati