Validation of quantitative computed tomographic evaluation of bone mineral density of several CT scanners

Steven L. Fritz; Charles D. Stockham

doi:10.1117/12.59438

1 June 1992 Validation of quantitative computed tomographic evaluation of bone mineral density of several CT scanners

Steven L. Fritz, Charles D. Stockham

Proceedings Volume 1652, Medical Imaging VI: Image Processing; (1992) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.59438
Event: Medical Imaging VI, 1992, Newport Beach, CA, United States

Abstract

We have validated a pre-existing model for QCT evaluation of bone mineral density by scanning a commercial bone mineral density phantom on several CT scanners and evaluating the accuracy and reproducibility of bone mineral density measurements on each. The model assumes that bone mineral density is a linear function of CT number of bone. Rather than imaging bone mineral density standards for calibration, we computed an `equivalent bone mineral density' for fat and muscle from the known linear relationship between bone mineral density and CT number to remove the dependence of bone mineral density on field non- uniformities caused by beam hardening and scattered radiation, positioning errors and quality control. The `equivalent bone mineral density' for fat and muscle were computed from spectral data and atomic composition of fat and tissue for a GE 9800 scanner. These were used to establish the true bone mineral density of two reference BMD standards used in the phantom and these in turn were used to measure the `equivalent bone mineral density' of fat and muscle on other CT scanners. Phantom measurements on several other CT scanners were used to compute the `equivalent bone mineral density' of the phantom inserts for those systems. Results from the Picker 1200, the Philips LX and the Siemens Somatom DR/H were compared with the results of the GE 9800.

Citation Download Citation

Steven L. Fritz and Charles D. Stockham "Validation of quantitative computed tomographic evaluation of bone mineral density of several CT scanners", Proc. SPIE 1652, Medical Imaging VI: Image Processing, (1 June 1992); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.59438

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available