Error analysis of material‐decomposition‐based effective atomic number quantification method
Li Chen,Xu Ji,Zhe Wang,Yang Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16620
IF: 4.506
2023-07-18
Medical Physics
Abstract:Background The effective atomic number (Zeff) is widely applied to the identification of unknown materials. One method to determine the Zeff is material‐decomposition‐based spectral X‐ray imaging. The method relies on certain approximations of the X‐ray interaction cross‐sections such as empirical model coefficients. The impact of such approximations on the accuracy of Zeff quantification has not been fully investigated. Purpose To perform an error analysis of the material‐decomposition‐based Zeff quantification method and propose a coefficient calibration‐in‐groups method to improve the modeling accuracy and reduce the Zeff quantification error. Methods The model of the material‐decomposition‐based Zeff quantification method relies on the dependence of the interaction cross‐sections (σPE) on the atomic number Z and corresponding coefficient, that is, σPE∝Zm . In this work, all the data is from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) website. First, the coefficient m is calibrated through a logarithmic fitting method to quickly determine the m values for any certain energy and Zeff ranges. Then materials including elements and common compounds with Zeff ranging from 6–20 are selected as the objects whose effective atomic numbers are to be quantified. Different combinations of basis materials are applied to decompose the object materials and their quantification errors are analyzed. With the help of error analysis, the object materials are divided into high‐error and low‐error groups based on the decomposition coefficient ratio amin/amax , which is found to have a strong correlation with error, and their coefficients are calibrated in groups. Finally, the average errors of three m selection strategies: (1) using an empirical m value of 3.94, which is also considered a standard method; (2) using a single m value, which is calibrated through the logarithmic fitting method; (3) using different m values calibrated in groups, are calculated to test the effectiveness of our method. Results The approximation of the X‐ray interaction cross‐section leads to certain errors in Zeff quantification and the error distributions for different basis materials are different. The average errors for most basis material combinations (C(6)/Ca(20), C(6)/Al(13), Al(13)/Ca(20), C(6)/Ne(10), Na(11)/P(15)) are lower than 0.5, maintaining good average accuracy. While the average error for S(16)/Ca(20) is up to 0.8461, leading to more misjudgments on atomic number. Meanwhile, the error distribution regularity can be observed. The Pearson's correlation coefficients of absolute errors and decomposition coefficient ratios are 0.743, 0.8432 and 0.7126 for basis material combinations C(6)/Ca(20), C(6)/Al(13) and Al(13)/Ca(20), indicating a good correlation. The method using either empirical m value of 3.94 or single calibrated m value of 4.619 has relatively high average errors. The proposed method using different m values calibrated in groups has the lowest average errors 0.254, 0.203 and 0.169, which are reduced by 21.6%(0.07), 3.8%(0.008) and 62.9%(0.286) respectively compared with the standard method. Conclusions The error analysis demonstrates that the approximation of X‐ray interaction cross‐sections leads to inevitable errors, while also revealing certain error distribution regularity. The coefficient calibrated‐in‐groups method has better modeling accuracy and has effectively reduced the error compared with the standard method using a single empirical m value of 3.94.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging