Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 17;42(5):2404–2420. doi: 10.1118/1.4917227

TABLE I.

Measured entrance exposure of phantom studies compared with DTS.

Phantom Imaging method Tube voltage (kVp) mA s Entrance dose (mR) Uncertainty (mR)
Bubble wrap In-line phase contrast tomosynthesis 120 124.0 4 938.3 8.05
Conventional DTS 40 5 322.7 9.82
Fishbone In-line phase contrast tomosynthesis 120 155.0 6 141.1 8.98
Conventional DTS 40 6 683.6 7.20
Chicken breast In-line phase contrast tomosynthesis 120 258.4 10 229.7 7.97
Conventional DTS 40 11 098.5 6.83