Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Published
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY ENERGY SPECTRUM SIMULATORS
EVALUACIÓN COMPARATIVA DE SIMULADORES DEL ESPECTRO ENERGÉTICO DE RAYOS X DIAGNÓSTICOS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/mo.n73.124289Keywords:
x-rays, beam quality, simulators, computational modeling, diagnostic radiology (en)rayos x, Calidad del haz, Simuladores, Modelado computacional, Radiología diagnóstica (es)
Downloads
The quality of an X-ray beam reflects its penetrating ability and is directly related to the absorbed dose received by the patient during an imaging procedure. Therefore, characterizing this beam by obtaining its energy spectrum is of paramount importance. In the literature, there are several spectrum simulators (software tools based on mathematical models) that generate estimated spectra from equipment input parameters. This study aims to evaluate the performance of different diagnostic X-ray spectrum simulators based on beam quality indicators, namely IPEM-78, SpekCalc, SpekPy, Xpecgen (developed in Python), and Siemens, under equivalent operating conditions. Results show that SpekCalc yielded the lowest discrepancy with respect to the experimental spectrum (RMSE = 0.0713), whereas IPEM-78 yielded the most accurate beam quality indicators, with an effective energy of 36.0 keV compared to the experimental value of 37.0 keV.
La calidad de un haz de rayos X refleja su capacidad de penetración y está directamente relacionada con la dosis absorbida por el paciente durante un procedimiento de imagen. Por lo tanto, la caracterización de este haz mediante la obtención de su espectro energético es de suma importancia. En la literatura existen varios simuladores espectrales (herramientas de software basadas en modelos matemáticos) que generan espectros estimados a partir de los parámetros de entrada del equipo. Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar el desempeño de diferentes simuladores del espectro de rayos X diagnósticos, con base en indicadores de calidad del haz, a saber, IPEM-78, SpekCalc, SpekPy, Xpecgen (desarrollado en Python) y Siemens, bajo condiciones de operación equivalentes. Los resultados muestran que SpekCalc presentó la menor discrepancia con respecto al espectro experimental (RMSE = 0.0713), mientras que IPEM-78 proporcionó los indicadores de calidad del haz más precisos, con una energía efectiva de 36.0 keV en comparación con el valor experimental de 37.0 keV.
References
A. N. de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA), “Resolução rdc n. 611, de 9 de março de 2022,” Avalilable at: https://cbr.org.br/ (2022).
International Commission on Radiological Protection, Ann. ICRP 37, 1 (2007), pMID: 18082557.
C. E. Calderón, Momento 58, 89 (2019), cited by: 0; All Open Access; Gold Open Access.
F. Zölzer, J. Radiol. Prot. 42, (2022).
J. S. C. Delgado, F. M. Pachas, A. E. Gonzales-Ccoscco, E. C. Solis, C. H. Castillo, G. P. Camargo, and M. S. Alva-Sánchez, Momento 2024, 137 (2024), cited by: 1; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Accepted Open Access; Green Open Access.
A. Tompe and K. Sargar, “X-ray image quality assurance" in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2025) available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564362/.
A. C. Gonçalves, J. H. Wilches Visbal, and A. M. Da Costa, Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Fı́sicas y Naturales 44, 142 (2020).
S. C. Chen, W. L. Jong, and A. Z. Harun, Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 19, 22 (2012), pMID: 23610546. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3629661/.
A. Omar, P. Andreo, and G. Poludniowski, Medical Physics 47, 4005 (2020), epub 2020 Jul 18.
G. Poludniowski, G. Landry, F. DeBlois, P. M. Evans, and F. Verhaegen, Physics in Medicine and Biology 54, N433 (2009), epub 2009 Sep 1.
R. Bujila, A. Omar, and G. Poludniowski, Physica Medica 75, 44 (2020), epub 2020 Jun 5.
H. A. Bethe, Annalen der Physik 397, 325 (1930), received: 27 December 1929.
J. M. Boone and J. A. Seibert, Medical Physics 24, 1661 (1997), includes online supplementary data: http://www.aip.org/epaps/epaps.html.
G. Hernández and F. Fernández, Medical Physics 43, 4655 (2016).
M. Bhat, J. Pattison, G. Bibbo, and M. Caon, Medical Physics 25, 114 (1998).
J. C. A. C. R. Soares, Princı́pios de Fı́sica em Radiodiagnóstico, 2nd ed. (Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia, São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 2008) edição revista.
A. H. L. Gonzales and P. R. Costa, Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences 2, 01 (2014).
F. H. Attix, Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry, 1st ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 1986) p. 607, wiley-Interscience physics textbook.
How to Cite
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Download Citation
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have publications with this journal, accept the following terms:
a. The authors will retain their copyright and will guarantee the publication of the first publication of their work, which will be subject to the Attribution-SinDerivar 4.0 International Creative Commons Attribution License that permits redistribution, commercial or non-commercial, As long as the Work circulates intact and unchanged, where it indicates its author and its first publication in this magazine.
b. Authors are encouraged to disseminate their work through the Internet (eg in institutional telematic files or on their website) before and during the sending process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase appointments of the published work.
