Abstract：Focusing on the difficulties that exist in the data processing of the AGD measurement of medical X-ray radiation source for mammographic equipment, two effective data processing methods were proposed: the nearest value method and the linear fitting method. Through test and comparison, the following conclusions were obtained: the measurement results and uncertainty obtained by the two data processing methods meet the requirements of relevant technical specifications, and satisfied the judge standard of 3Urel≤MPE. In comparison, the measurement results obtained by linear fitting method are more accurate, its relative expanded uncertainty (k=2) is in the range of 5.7%～6.5%, while that obtained by the nearest value method is in the range of 6.4%～10%. The above two data processing methods can effectively solve the problem of how to determine the conversion factor of different phantom thickness and the correction factor of different breast components in the verification of medical breast X-ray radiation source, and provide some reference for the next revision and improvement of national regulations, and also have a certain reference for the analysis and processing of other similar measurement data.
赵才贤. 乳腺腺体平均剂量2种测量数据处理方法的比较研究[J]. 计量学报, 2020, 41(10): 1297-1302.
ZHAO Cai-xian. Comparative Research on Two Methods of Measurement Data Processing for Average Glandular Dose. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2020, 41(10): 1297-1302.
［1］Okunade A A. Method for the evaluation of a average glandular dose in mammography［J］. Medical Physics, 2006, 33(4): 1153.
［2］IEC 61223-3-2-2007 Evaluation and routine testing in medical imaging departments-Part3-2: Acceptance tests-Imaging performance of mammographic X-ray equipment［S］. 2007.
［3］JJG 1145—2017 医用乳腺X射线辐射源检定规程［S］. 2017.
［4］沈茜刚, 顾雅佳, 郑晓静, 等. 乳腺X线摄影辐射剂量、乳腺密度及体成分三者间的相关性研究［J］. 中国癌症杂志, 2018, 28(10): 755-761.
Shen X G, Gu Y J, Zheng X J, et al. The correlation study among mammographic radiation dose, breast density and body composition in breast cancer［J］. China Oncology, 2018, 28(10): 755-761.
［5］王继, 李宏杰, 吴金杰, 等. 钨靶光管钼过滤X射线空气比释动能的量值复现［J］. 计量学报, 2018, 39(z1): 122-126.
Wang J, Li H J, Wu J J, et al. Measurement of Air Kerma of Tungsten Target X-ray Tube with Molybdenum Filter［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2018, 39(z1): 122-126.
［6］郭思明, 刘莹, 吴金杰. 乳腺X射线基准装置半值层的测量［J］. 计量学报, 2018, 39(3): 410-413.
Guo S M, Liu Y, Wu J J. Half Value Layer Measurement of Mammography X-ray Standard［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2018, 39(3): 410-413.
［7］Songsaeng C, Krisanachinda A, Theerakul K. Effect of filter on average glandular dose and image quality in digital mammography［J］. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2016,694:012039.
［8］Bouwman R W, Engen R E V, Young K C, et al. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: Comparison of phantom and patient data［J］. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2015, 60(20): 7893-7907.
［9］Alakhras M M, Mello-Thoms C, Bourne R, et al. Radiation dose differences between digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are dependent on breast thickness［C］//SPIE. Conference on physics of medical imaging. San Diego, CA,USA,2016:97832R.1-97832R.7
［11］赵红兰, 马红, 路欣, 等. 不同管电压对乳腺数字X线摄影辐射剂量和图像质量的影响［J］. 中华放射学杂志, 2013, 47(10): 921-925.
Zhao H L, Ma H, Lu X, et al. Influences of different tube voltages on the dose and image quality of a full field digital mammography［J］. Chinese Journal of Radiology, 2013, 47(10): 921-925.
［12］李新颖, 刘凯, 黄海燕. 多线函数法在曲线拟合中的应用研究［J］. 计量学报, 2018, 39(5): 716-719.
Li X Y, Liu K, Huang H Y. Application of Multi-line Function Method in Curve Fitting［J］. Acta Metrologica Sinica, 2018, 39(5): 716-719.
［13］JJF 1059. 1—2012 测量不确定度评定与表示［S］.
［14］JJG 2095—2012 (10～60)kV X射线空气比释动能计量器具［S］.
［15］JJF 1094—2002 测量仪器特性评定［S］. 2002.
［16］CNAS-TRL-010:2019 测量不确定度在符合性判定中的应用［S］.
2020, Vol. 41 
