scholarly journals Summer 2021 Co-op Report: X-Ray Scintillation Detector A Co-op Work Experience Report by Michael C. Solis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Solis
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 36-39
Author(s):  
Samson O. Paulinus ◽  
Benjamin E. Udoh ◽  
Bassey E. Archibong ◽  
Akpama E. Egong ◽  
Akwa E. Erim ◽  
...  

Objective: Physicians who often request for computed tomography (CT) scan examinations are expected to have sound knowledge of radiation exposure (risks) to patients in line with the basic radiation protection principles according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Exposure or Treatment (POPUMET), and the Ionizing Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations (IR(ME)R). The aim is to assess the level of requesting physicians’ knowledge of ionizing radiation from CT scan examinations in two Nigerian tertiary hospitals. Materials and Methods: An 18-item-based questionnaire was distributed to 141 practicing medical doctors, excluding radiologists with work experience from 0 to >16 years in two major teaching hospitals in Nigeria with a return rate of 69%, using a voluntary sampling technique. Results: The results showed that 25% of the respondents identified CT thorax, abdomen, and pelvis examination as having the highest radiation risk, while 22% said that it was a conventional chest X-ray. Furthermore, 14% concluded that CT head had the highest risk while 9% gave their answer to be conventional abdominal X-ray. In addition, 17% inferred that magnetic resonance imaging had the highest radiation risk while 11% had no idea. Furthermore, 25.5% of the respondents have had training on ionizing radiation from CT scan examinations while 74.5% had no training. Majority (90%) of the respondents were not aware of the ICRP guidelines for requesting investigations with very little (<3%) or no knowledge (0%) on the POPUMET and the IR(ME)R respectively. Conclusion: There is low level of knowledge of ionizing radiation from CT scan examinations among requesting physicians in the study locations.


1972 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 322-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis Carpenter ◽  
John Thatcher

AbstractA comparison of the relative merits of the energy dispersive derector-pulse height analyzer, scintillation detector-graphite monochromator, and proportional detector-pulse height analyzer combinations.Typical energy dispersive detectors are not configured for maximum efficiency on the diffractometer. Being only on the order of 3 mm diameter, a good deal of the available information is not collected by the detector. This is especially true with the Wide optics found in modern diffractometers. The energy dispersive detector incorporated into this system is optimized for the x-ray diffractometer. Its detection area is a 1.25 X 0.25 inch rectangle. The resolution is only sufficient to remove the Kβ portion of the spectrum.Conventional diffractometer techniques incorporate either a scintillation detector-crystal monochromator, or a proportional detector-pulse height analyser combination. The question posed is “what are the advantages in signal to noise ratio and pulse height distribution of the energy dispersive-pulse height analyzer over the more conventional arrangements.”


Author(s):  
F. Quarati ◽  
A.J.J. Bos ◽  
S. Brandenburg ◽  
C. Dathy ◽  
P. Dorenbos ◽  
...  

1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Dangendorf ◽  
Amos Breskin ◽  
Rachel Chechik ◽  
Horst W. Schmidt-Boecking

1993 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 145-151
Author(s):  
N. Loxley ◽  
S. Cockerton ◽  
B. K. Tanner

AbstractWe show that a very low noise, high dynamic range scintillation detector has major advantages over conventional detectors for characterization of pseudomorphic HEMT structures by high resolution X-ray diffraction. We show that the reduced background enables a second modulation period to be detected, enabling the thickness and composition to be determined independently. Using a conventional X-ray generator and diffractometer we demonstrate that, in a single scan taking only 10 seconds, we are able to obtain sufficiently good data to provide quality assurance.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Dag Waaler ◽  
Sigrid Hammer ◽  
Camilla Langdalen ◽  
Linn Therese Håkonsen Haug

Introduction: Radiographer´s usual role in the medical imaging chain is to acquire relevant and qualitatively good images that help the radiologist or physician to diagnose most accurately. After the image acquisition, the radiographer does a quality evaluation based on established imaging criteria to decide if the image is satisfactory, or otherwise reject it and subsequently take a new one. Contrary to expectations that the number of image rejects should decrease substantially with the introduction of digital imaging, a number of studies have shown that it has not, although the reasons for rejects has changed from exposure errors to positioning and centring errors. Very little research has been on examining how radiographers visually perceive and evaluate the X-ray images in this acceptance/rejection process.Purpose: Investigate how radiographers and radiography students visually perceives X-ray images in the process of accepting or rejecting them on basis of radiographic imaging criteria, and see if there are differences in strategies across experience levels.Materials and methods: Three radiography students and five radiographers with varying years of experience were given the task of accepting or rejecting shoulder and knee projection images based on positioning criteria. Using eye tracking, we measured the participants’ number and duration of gaze fixations within 1) the field of view defined by the monitor display, 2) the part of the monitor displaying the X-ray image only, and 3) the region within the X-ray images considered to be most relevant given the imaging criteria task. The quantitative eye-tracking measurements were followed-up by four qualitative questions.Results: Some differences in fixation patterns between the groups were found; the medium experienced radiographers spent statistically significant lesser number of fixations and lesser average single fixation durations than both the radiography students and the most experienced radiographers did, whereas the two latter groups scored almost equally. Conclusion: The study revealed that work experience might have some influence on how radiographers and radiography students assess X-ray images, but in subtler ways than expected. The study also revealed, however, quite large individual differences across experience.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document