The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Flash scanner

Manufactured by Siemens

The Flash scanner is a compact, high-speed scanning device designed for use in laboratory settings. It captures images of samples or specimens with precision and efficiency. The core function of the Flash scanner is to provide users with accurate digital representations of their research materials in a streamlined manner.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

5 protocols using flash scanner

1

Measuring Pulmonary Blood Volume at FRC

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The DECT protocol was designed to measure PBV at functional residual capacity (FRC), as pleural pressure is close to zero at that level of inspiration. To minimize scanner-specific differences, imaging was restricted to two scanner types from one manufacturer: the Siemens Force scanner (CareDose on, pitch 0.55, 0.25 sec exposure time, 0.5mm slice thickness, iterative reconstruction with ADMIRE-5 using Qr40 reconstruction) and the Siemens Flash scanner (CareDose on, pitch 0.5, 0.285 sec exposure time, 0.5mm slice thickness, iterative reconstruction with SAFIRE-5 using a Q30f reconstruction). 370mg/mL Iopamidol contrast was delivered as an infusion at a rate of 4mL/s, starting 17 seconds prior to scanning, and continuing for the full scan. A concentration of 75% was used on the Flash scanners; 50% concentration was used on Force scanners due to improved contrast resolution on those scanners.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Trauma CT Protocol Specifications

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Most exams were performed as part of an initial trauma evaluation and scanned on either a Siemens Flash scanner or Siemens Definition Edge scanner. Standard CT parameters for the trauma protocol were 2.0 mm slice thickness with 1.2 mm slice increment for the chest, with both a vascular optimized kernel (B30f) axial reconstruction and a dedicated high spatial resolution kernel for fracture evaluation (B70). The abdominopelvic portion of the exam was reconstructed with 3.0 mm slice thickness at 2.0 mm slice increment, with soft tissue kernel (I30) and a medium strength setting for SAFIRE. The chest and the abdominopelvic portions of the exam were reconstructed in both sagittal and coronal planes as well. The chest and the abdominopelvic acquisitions are done at fixed 120kVP, with Quality reference mAs of 240.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Reproducibility and Validation of MDCT Trabecular Bone Measures

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To examine the reproducibility of MDCT Tb measures, we computed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) from repeat scans. Linear correlation analysis was used to examine relationships between measurement values derived by MDCT and micro-CT imaging and to assess the ability of MDCT and micro-CT derived Tb measures to predict bone strength and stiffness. For these experiments, MDCT images from the Siemens Flash scanner were used.
Scatter-plots for measurements from the two MDCT scanners were examined for possible non-linearity or heteroscedasticity. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated and Lin’s CCCs (concordance correlation coefficients) were computed as a measure of agreement between scanners and as a criterion of the need for calibration (SAS MCCC macro developed by R. Dierkhising, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 2006, was used). Calibration equations for the 6–8% outer region were developed using simple linear regression models.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Comparative CT Scanning for High-Resolution Imaging

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Matching HR and LR ankle CT scans of human volunteers acquired on two different CT scanners with significantly different spatial resolution were used for training, validation, and testing of the GAN-CIRCLE-based HR reconstructor described in the previous section. Specifically, nineteen healthy volunteers (age: 26.2 ± 4.5 Y; 10 F) were recruited and the distal tibia of their left legs were scanned on two MDCT scanners. The study was conducted around the transition period of the MDCT scanner upgrade at the University of Iowa Comprehensive Lung Imaging Center (I-CLIC). The first MDCT distal scan on each volunteer was performed on a LR Siemens FLASH scanner, and then they were recalled and rescanned on a HR Siemens FORCE scanner after upgrade. The average time gap between the LR and HR scans was 44.6 ± 2.7 days, with the minimum and maximum gaps of 40 and 48 days, respectively. The human study was approved by The University of Iowa Institutional Review Board and all participants provided written informed consent. The CT scan protocols on the two scanners are described here.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Comparison of Advanced MDCT Scanners for Tibia BMD Assessment

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Two state-of-the-art MDCT scanners—Scanner 1: Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash (briefly Flash), Forchheim, Germany; Scanner 2: Siemens SOMATOM Force (briefly Force), Forchheim, Germany—were used. For both scanners, imaging experiments were performed at the ICLIC. The UHR scan mode was used and a scan-length of 10 cm beginning at the distal tibia end-plateau was used; an anterior-posterior (AP) projection scout scan of the entire tibia was acquired to locate the field of view (FOV). A Gammex RMI 467 Tissue Characterization Phantom (Gammex RMI, Middleton, WI) was scanned to calibrate CT Hounsfield units into BMD (mg/cm3). In vivo ankle scan setup for a Siemens Force MDCT scanner along with the FOV selection on a scout scan and a reconstructed axial image slice are illustrated in Figure 1; a similar setup was used for the Siemens Flash scanner. Scanner-specific CT parameters are detailed in the following.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!