Optimizing exposure parameters for thorax computed radiography: An aRTist simulation study with SNR and CNR analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58524/jhep.v2i1.151Keywords:
aRTist, Computed Radiography, Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR), Exposure optimization, Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), Thorax phantomAbstract
Optimization of Exposure Factors on Image Quality in Computed Radiography (CR) of a Thorax Phantom at a Military Hospital Using the aRTist Simulation Program. Thorax radiography presents particular challenges for exposure optimization due to the wide dynamic range between low-density lungs and dense mediastinal structures, requiring careful balance of technical parameters. This study aims to optimize exposure parameters affecting image quality in thoracic Computed Radiography (CR) procedures by utilizing a simulation-based approach, supporting advancements in medical imaging and radiation safety. The research employed the aRTist simulation software to model a CR system and a 3D anthropomorphic thorax phantom representing the anatomy of an adult Asian male. Five commonly used clinical exposure factor variations were simulated: 55 kV / 10 mAs, 65 kV / 8 mAs, 75 kV / 4 mAs, 85 kV / 2 mAs, and 95 kV / 1 mAs. Image quality was quantitatively assessed using Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Contrast-to-Noise Ratio (CNR) calculated across five key Regions of Interest (ROIs) on posteroanterior (PA) thorax images. The results indicate a consistent trend: increasing tube voltage (kV) improves SNR but reduces CNR. Conversely, increasing milliampere-seconds (mAs) linearly improves both SNR and CNR up to an optimal point. The combination of 65 kV and 8 mAs yielded the most balanced image quality, achieving SNR (25.2) and CNR (3.30) values within IAEA-recommended optimal ranges (SNR 25-28, CNR 2-5), while maintaining low radiation exposure principles. Higher kV settings (85-95 kV) produced high SNR but significantly reduced CNR, compromising diagnostic contrast. The aRTist simulation program is proven effective for technically and educationally determining optimal exposure parameters for thoracic CR imaging. The 65 kV / 8 mAs combination offers the best balance between image clarity, contrast, and dose efficiency. This simulation-based methodology supports the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle and enhances clinical decision-making for safe, efficient, and evidence-based radiology practices, particularly in hospital settings.
References
1. Lampignano JP, Kendrick LE. Bontrager’s Textbook of Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomy [Internet]. Elsevier; 2018. Available from: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=SOr_vQAACAAJ
2. Smith G, Lurie K, Zlatev D, Ellerbee A. Multimodal 3D cancer-mimicking optical phantom. Biomed Opt Express. 2016 Jan;7:648–62. doi:10.1364/BOE.7.000648
3. Bellon C, Jaenisch GR. aRTist – Analytical RT Inspection Simulation Tool. In. 2007. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15547726
4. Gollwitzer C, Bellon C, Deresch A, Ewert U, Jaenisch GR. On POD Estimations with Radiographic Simulator aRTist. In. 2011. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:42199074
5. Bushberg JT, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging [Internet]. Wolters Kluwer Health; 2011. (M - Medicine Series). Available from: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=tqM8IG3f8bsC
6. Moore CS, Beavis AW, Saunderson JR. Investigation of optimum X-ray beam tube voltage and filtration for chest radiography with a computed radiography system. Br J Radiol. 2008 Oct;81(970):771–7. doi:10.1259/bjr/21963665 PubMed PMID: 18662964.
7. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Ullman G, Dance DR, Alm Carlsson G. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages. Med Phys. 2006 Nov;33(11):4169–75. doi:10.1118/1.2362871 PubMed PMID: 17153395.
8. Ambarsari T, Santoso B, Apriantoro N, Anita F. Analisis Optimasi Citra Radiografi Pada Pemeriksaan Thorax Sistem Computed Radiography (CR) Terhadap Entrance Surface Dose (ESD). J Ilm Giga. 2019 Mar;17:1. doi:10.47313/jig.v17i1.533
9. Vodovatov A, Kamishanskaya I, Drozdov A, Bernhardsson C. Quality assessment of digital X-ray chest images using an anthropomorphic chest phantom. J Phys Conf Ser. 2017 Feb;808:012009. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/808/1/012009
10. Varghese AP, Naik S, Asrar Up Haq Andrabi S, Luharia A, Tivaskar S. Enhancing Radiological Diagnosis: A Comprehensive Review of Image Quality Assessment and Optimization Strategies. Cureus. 2024 Jun;16(6):e63016. doi:10.7759/cureus.63016 PubMed PMID: 39050319; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11268977.
11. Malone J. Radiation Protection in Newer Medical Imaging Techniques: PET/CT. IAEA Safety Report Series No 58. 2008.
12. Seeram E. Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and Quality Control. 2019. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-3244-9
13. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 1991;21(1–3):1–201. PubMed PMID: 2053748.
14. Bellon C, Deresch A, Gollwitzer C, Jaenisch GR. Radiographic simulator aRTist: version 2. In. Durban, South Africa; 2012. p. 1-7 (Paper 333). Located at: OPUS4-27398
15. Bazrafshan Drissi H. Practical chest imaging interpretation: X-ray and CT scan. 2025.
16. Hazelaar C, van Eijnatten M, Dahele M, Wolff J, Forouzanfar T, Slotman B, et al. Using 3D Printing Techniques to Create an Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom for Medical Imaging Purposes. Med Phys. 2017 Nov;45. doi:10.1002/mp.12644
17. Floyd CEJ, Baker JA, Lo JY, Ravin CE. Measurement of scatter fractions in clinical bedside radiography. Radiology. 1992 Jun;183(3):857–61. doi:10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584947 PubMed PMID: 1584947.
18. Tsalafoutas I, Alkhazzam S, Tsapaki V, Kharita M. Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using a modified version of the IAEA radiography phantom allowing multiple detection tasks. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2025 Jan;26. doi:10.1002/acm2.14599
19. Hamzah NA, Tan LK, Tsapaki V, Ciraj-Bjelac O, Bakhtiar DFA, Harun H, et al. Implementation of remote and automated quality control programme for digital imaging: A single centre experience. Radiat Phys Chem. 2025;236:112897. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.112897
20. Bastos A, Nogueira M. Image quality in diagnostic radiology: a guide to methodologies for radiologists. Radiol Bras. 2025 Apr;58:e20240088. doi:10.1590/0100-3984.2024.0088-en
21. Kharita M, Khedr M, Wannus K. A comparative study of quality control in diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008 May;130:447–51. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncn096
22. Ainy NS, Nugroho A, Faik M. Analisis Kualitas Citra Radiografi CR dengan SNR dan CNR Menggunakan Pengolahan Citra Phyton. J Ilm Kedokt Dan Kesehat. 2025 Nov;5(1):503–15. doi:10.55606/klinik.v5i1.5729
23. Kh N, Wong J, Clarke G. Radiation Protection and Radiobiology. In. 2018. p. 131–7. doi:10.1201/9781351006781-11
24. Iqbal M, Faqih A, Suryawan I, Suryatika M, Sudarsana W, Sari NK, et al. The Effect of Tube Voltage Variations on CT Scan Image Quality at Prof. I G. Asian J Res Rev Phys. 2024 Oct;8:44–52. doi:10.9734/ajr2p/2024/v8i4174
25. Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist [Internet]. Wolters Kluwer Health; 2012. Available from: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=Vy8CSVcriUoC
26. Carlton RR, Adler AM. Principles of Radiographic Imaging: An Art and A Science [Internet]. Cengage Learning; 2012. Available from: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=5mbrJ43Oo7IC
27. Zanzonico P. Physics in Nuclear Medicine. Med Phys. 2014 Feb;41. doi:10.1118/1.4865807
28. Elkut F. A Review of mAs Optimization Strategies in CT Imaging:: Maximizing Quality and Minimizing Dose simultaneously. In. 2025.
29. Kareliotis G. STUDY OF kVp AND mAs EFFECT ON RADIATION DOSE AND IMAGE QUALITY IN COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY [PhD Thesis]. 2015. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.32266.06083
30. Romadanov I, Sattarivand M. Adaptive noise reduction for dual-energy x-ray imaging based on spatial variations in beam attenuation. Phys Med Biol. 2020 Dec;65. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab9e57
31. Vañó E, Guibelalde E, Morillo A, Alvarez-Pedrosa CS, Fernández JM. Evaluation of the European image quality criteria for chest examinations. Br J Radiol. 1995 Dec;68(816):1349–55. doi:10.1259/0007-1285-68-816-1349 PubMed PMID: 8777597.
32. Hogg P, Lança L, Borge S, Campbell N, Gomes A, Raszkowski A, et al. Radiation dose and image quality optimisation in medical imaging. 2015.
33. Ravin CE, Chotas HG. Chest radiography. Radiology. 1997 Sep;204(3):593–600. doi:10.1148/radiology.204.3.9280231 PubMed PMID: 9280231.
34. Liu X, Shaw CC. Regional improvement of signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios in dual-screen CR chest imaging—a phantom study. Med Phys. 2001;28(6):1080–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1376136
35. Shaw CC, Wang TP, Breitenstein DS, Gur D. Improvement of signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios in dual-screen computed radiography. Med Phys. 1997 Aug;24(8):1293–302. doi:10.1118/1.598151 PubMed PMID: 9284253.
36. Hatamikia S, Oberoi G, Unger E, Kronreif G, Kettenbach J, Buschmann M, et al. Additively Manufactured Patient-Specific Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom With Realistic Radiation Attenuation Properties. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:385. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2020.00385 PubMed PMID: 32457883; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7225309.
37. Zahroh F, Anam C, Sutanto H, Irdawati Y, Hidayanto E, Arifin Z, et al. The Effect of silicone rubber-lead (SR-Pb) as an additional filter on radiation dose and image quality in computed radiography (CR). J Phys Conf Ser. 2020 Jun;1505:012040. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1505/1/012040
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ananda Yessica Margaretha Hutagalung, Intan Apriliani Syaridatul Mu’minah (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
