Abstract:
A flat panel x-ray imager exhibiting reduced ghosting effects and overvoltage protection by appropriate leakage current characteristics of the thin-film transistor array. A top electrode of a suitable material is directly on and in physical and electrical contact with an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer, thereby reducing ghosting. The thin-film transistors have leakage current that rises relatively slowly with voltage across the transistor within a range that matches exposure through an object being imaged but rises at a sufficiently higher rate within a higher range to provide protection even when a corresponding region of the charge generator layer receives greater amounts of x-rays.

Description:
FIELD 
     This patent specification is in the field of radiography and pertains more specifically to x-ray imaging using a digital, flat panel x-ray imager. 
     BACKGROUND 
     Flat panel x-ray imaging devices that use charge generator materials such as doped amorphous selenium charge generator layers and directly convert x-rays to electrical charges and thus generate electrical signal related to local x-ray exposure, have been developed in recent years. See, for example U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,206, and Yorker J., Jeromin L., Lee D., Palecki E., Golden K., and Jing Z., “Charactrerization of a full field mammography detector based on direct x-ray conversion in selenium,” Proc. SPIE 4682, 21–29 (2002). Commercial versions for general radiography and for mammography have been available for more than a year in this country from Hologic, Inc. of Bedford, Mass. (“Hologic”) and Direct Radiography Corporation of Newark, Del. (“DRC”). The DRC imager is used in mammography systems that have been available for more than a year in this country from Lorad Corporation of Danbury, Conn. (“Lorad”). In such direct conversion panels, the charge generator material directly converts x-ray photons into electron-hole pairs and, under an applied electrical field, the holes and electrons barrier to respective electrodes with very little lateral loss to neighboring pixels. Direct conversion is believed to offer better spatial resolution and other advantages over indirect conversion panels, in which x-ray photons cause scintillation in a material such as cesium iodide and the resulting light energy in detected. 
     The structure of a direct conversion flat panel imager of the type referred to above is illustrated in principle but not to scale in  FIG. 5 . It comprises a top electrode  500 , a charge barrier layer  502  (typically made of Parylene) separating the top electrode from an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer  504 , an electron blocking layer  506  patterned into a two-dimensional pixel array, a charge collection electrode  508  that also is patterned into a pixel array, a TFT array comprising respective transistors  510  coupled to the charge collection electrode and to respective signal storage capacitors  512 , a substrate  514  typically made of glass, a gate pulse line  516  that enables (turns ON) the transistors to deliver to charge amplifiers  518  the charges collected at the respective storage capacitors, an a programmable high voltage power supply  520 . The illustrated equivalent capacitor circuit for a pixel comprises a capacitor  522  representing capacitance across the charge barrier layer, a capacitor  524  representing capacitance across the charge generator layer, and a capacitor  526  representing capacitance of the charge storage capacitor for the pixel. One of the functions of the charge barrier layer is protection of the thin-film transistors, which can suffer breakdown damage if the charge stored in the charge storage capacitors becomes too high, e.g. when a capacitor stores charges generated at a region of the charge generating layer that receives x-rays that have not been attenuated by the object being imaged. For example, in mammography the corners of the flat panel imager typically are outside the breast outline and receive much more radiation than the part of the imager under the breast. The charge barrier layer protects such transistors by collecting charges that gradually reduce the electrical field in the appropriate portions of the charge generator layer, and thus reduce the amount of charge that would otherwise collect at the pertinent charge collection capacitors. 
     The charge barrier layer thus contributes to meeting one of the challenges in flat panel detectors, namely, breakdown protection of the thin-film transistors. Another challenge is ghosting (remnants of one or more previous images) due to the time it takes to dissipate charges collected in the imager from previous x-ray exposures. Various techniques have been developed and used commercially to remove or at least reduce ghosting to an acceptable level. They include charge erasing by exposure to visible light between x-ray exposures and various ways to manipulate the bias potential of electrodes between x-ray exposures. The time needed to attend to ghosting makes it difficult to take images in rapid succession, such as for fluoroscopy or tomosynthesis 
     It has been reported that it would be impractical to use a direct conversion panel without a charge barrier layer. Thus, a 1998 paper by well-known researchers in direct conversion panels states that direct metallization of a selenium based detector in theory would allow for rapid imaging but concluding based on experimental data that this gives non-reproducible and unstable results. Polischuk B, Shukri Z., Legros A. and Rougheout H., “Selenium direct converter structure for static and dynamic x-ray detection in medical imaging applications,” SPIE Conference on Physics of Medical Imaging, San Diego, Calif., February 1998, SPIE Vol. 3336, pp. 494–504, states that “In order to develop a selenium based x-ray detector which could operate in real time, i.e. 30 frames per second, a direct metallized selenium structure would be required. It is well established in solid-state theory that metallic electrodes deposited directly onto the free surface of semiconductor layers can behave as Schottky contacts.” The paper states then states that “most metals with lower work functions [than selenium] should have built-in potential barriers which could minimize the injection of excess charge from the metal electrode,” but reports that tests showed that “sample-to-sample variability and contact instability were common observations on these samples,” and that: “It was therefore concluded that any x-ray detector which relied only on the Schottky contact to limit dark currents would provide non-reproducible and unstable results.” The paper proposes the solution of including a blocking layer between the top electrode and the selenium, and states that “The role of the top blocking layer is to limit the injection of positive charge from the metallic electrode, but allow any x-ray-generated electron to move unimpeded from the selenium layer to the metallic contact.” The authors of the article are from Noranda Advanced Materials of Quebec, Canada, an entity that is believed to have been a major developer at the time of flat panel selenium-based x-ray imagers, in addition to DRC. 
     A number of earlier proposals have dealt with the issue of high voltage protection in flat panel detectors. U.S. Pat. No. 6,353,229, granted to the three authors of the 1998 paper and two other inventors, refers to several such proposals. One is cited at column 1, lines 24–39 and is reported to involve a special dual-gate TFT (thin-film transistor) structure that forms a back channel in the TFT structure if the pixel voltage exceeds a certain potential. See, Zhao W., Law J., Waechner D., Huang Z., and Rowlands J., “Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium detectors with high voltage protection,” 1998 Med Phys 25 (4), pp. 539–549. Another is discussed at column 1, lines 46–57 U.S. Pat. No. 5,198,673) and is said to involve the use of a second two-terminal protection device resident at each pixel location. The patent also refers, in the section entitled “Description of Prior Art,” to a number of other items of prior art: (1) PCT International Application WO 96/22616 published Jul. 25, 1996; (2) Lee D., Cheung L. K., and Jeromin L., “A new digital detector for projection radiography,” 1995, SPIE Vol. 2432, pp. 237–249; (3) U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,598,004 and 5,396,072 (stating that “no mention is made [in those patents] of the high voltage protection of the TFT array”); (4) U.S. Pat. No. 5,528,043 (stating that the patent “does not mention whether high voltage protection of the circuit from the selenium bias is achieved”); (5) U.S. Pat. No. 5,436,101 (stating that “there is no mention of any high voltage protection of any element on the substrate”); and (6) Canadian patent application 2,184,667 published Mar. 4, 1998 and corresponding EP 0 826 983 published the same day (stating that “no indication of how this structure could be used for high voltage protection is given”). 
     U.S. Pat. No. 6,353,229 proposes to achieve high voltage protection “by setting the high voltage biasing electrode to a negative potential and the TFT “off” gate voltage to a predetermined negative value such that the TFT is essentially non-conductive.” The patent recognizes that “there will always be some TFT leakage” but states that “the negative “off” voltage may be adjusted so as to minimize the same and render the TFT essentially non-conductive.” See column 2, lines 49–61. 
     Earlier papers and patents are believed to be consistent with the patents and papers cited above. See U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,132,541, 5,184,018, 5,396,072, and 5,942,756, and Zhao W. and Rowlands J. A., “A large area solid-state detector for radiology using amorphous selenium,” SPIE Medical Imaging, Vol. 1. 1651, pp. 134–143, 1992. 
     Each of the patents and papers cited above is hereby incorporated by reference in this patent specification as though fully set forth herein. 
     SUMMARY OF DISCLOSURE 
     This patent specification discloses a new approach that departs from, and in some ways contradicts, the proposals in the patents and papers cited above. The new approach includes placing a top electrode directly on and in physical and electrical contact with a selenium-based charge generator layer, and intentionally uses leakage current of the TFT array transistors for protection. In the new approach, the leakage current characteristics of the TFT array transistors provide an operating regime in which the leakage current is relatively low for pixels that measure radiation within the typical range expected for the object being imaged but the leakage current is sufficiently high to avoid transistor breakdown for pixels that receive more radiation, e.g. pixels that are outside the object being imaged and receive radiation that is not attenuated by the object, such as pixels at corners of the imager. In the new approach, the TFT leakage current regime provides breakdown protection despite the absence of a charge barrier layer between the top electrode and the charge generator layer designed to protect from high voltage TFT breakdown. 
     In a preferred but non-limiting example, a top metal electrode is deposited or otherwise formed directly on the selenium-based layer, with no deliberately formed charge blocking or insulating layer between the top electrode and the charge generator layer. The leakage current of the thin-film transistors rises at a relatively low rate with voltage at the transistors up to a selected range but rises much more steeply with voltage at the transistors above that range. As a non-limiting example for a specific circuit configuration, the leakage current rises at a low rate up to transistor voltage in the range of 20–25 volts but rises much more steeply with voltage above that range. At higher voltage, the steeply rising leakage current provides built-in protection against transistor breakdown. The range of 20–25 volts is only an example, and other ranges may be appropriate to accomplish protection in the case of differently structured TFT array transistors or imagers. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING 
         FIG. 1  illustrates a partial cross-section of an x-ray imager panel incorporating an example of the technology disclosed in this patent specification. 
         FIG. 2  is a partly block-diagram and partly circuit diagram of a portion of the imager of  FIG. 1 . 
         FIG. 3  illustrates voltage vs. leakage current characteristic of a thin-film transistor used in  FIG. 2 . 
         FIG. 4  illustrates a comparison of ghosting characteristics of an imager using the disclosure of this patent specification and a prior art imager. 
         FIG. 5  illustrates a prior art x-ray imager panel in a view similar to that of  FIG. 1 . 
         FIGS. 6   a  and  6   b  show graphs illustrating linearity of an imager according to  FIGS. 1–3  in screening mode and in tomosynthesis mode, respectively. 
         FIGS. 7   a  and  7   b  show graphs illustrating modulation transfer function (MTF) of an imager according to  FIGS. 1–3  in screening mode and in tomosynthesis mode, respectively. 
         FIG. 8  shows a graph illustrating noise power spectrum (NTS) of an imager according to  FIGS. 1–3  in screening mode. 
         FIGS. 9   a – 9   b  and  FIG. 9   c  show graphs illustrating detector quantum efficiency (DQE) of an imager according to  FIGS. 1–3  in screening mode and in tomosynthesis mode, respectively. 
         FIG. 10  shows a graph illustrating ghost(%) characteristics of an imager according to  FIGS. 1–3  in screening mode. 
         FIG. 11  shows a graph illustrating image lag as a function of elapsed time of an imager according to  FIGS. 1–3  in tomosynthesis mode. 
         FIG. 12  shows a graph illustrating residual image ghost as a function of time of an imager according to  FIGS. 1–3  in tomosynthesis mode. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
     Referring to  FIG. 1 , a non-limiting example of an imager incorporating the teachings of this patent specification comprises a top electrode  100  deposited or otherwise formed directly on, and in physical and electrical contact with, an upper surface of an amorphous selenium-based charge generator layer  102 . Unlike the case illustrated in  FIG. 5 , there is no deliberately deposited or otherwise formed charge barrier layer, although it is possible that some unappreciated interaction may take place at the interface between top electrode  100  and charge generator layer  102  exhibiting some barrier effects. A charge collection electrode  104  is patterned into a two-dimensional array of pixel electrodes that are under charge generator layer  102  or are embedded at a bottom surfaces thereof. An electron blocking layer  106  may cover pixel electrodes  104  (also called charge collection electrode). A read-our circuit is interposed between charge generator layer  102  and a substrate  108 , and comprises respective signal storage capacitors  110  coupled electrically with the pixel electrodes and a thin-film transistor (TFT) array comprising respective gating transistors  112  coupled electrically with the junctions between the pixel electrodes and the signal storage capacitors. Transistors  112  are normally in an OFF state but can be enabled (turned ON) by a gating signal delivered over gate pulse line  114 , to thereby deliver charge accumulated in signal storage capacitors to a charge amplifier  116 . A programmable high voltage power supply  118  applies a positive potential to top electrode  100  relative to ground and to grounded signal storage capacitors  110 , to thereby induce an electrical field in charge generator layer  102 . Additional electrical fields can be generated as well, for example by forming and appropriately biasing special electrodes that extend into the underside of charge generator layer  106 , between adjacent charger collector electrodes  104 .  FIG. 1  is not to scale, and omits well known components of an imaging panel, such as a protective layer over top electrode  100  (e.g. Parylene passivation over an Al top electrode, or any protective layer over the top electrode) and various other mechanical or electrical components that are a part of the imaging panel that has been available from DRC and used by Lorad for mammography and has 3584 by 4096 square pixels of 70 microns each over an active area of about 25 by 29 cm. The charge generator layer is about 200 microns thick and is thermally stabilized by controlled amounts of dopants. A voltage of about 1,000 volts across the charge generator layer can be used, resulting in an electric field of about 5 volts per micron thickness. 
     Referring to  FIG. 2 , the components that are the same as in  FIG. 1  bear the same reference numerals. The additional components are: additional gate pulse lines G 2  . . . G n  that are similar to line  114  (G 1 ) but serve other rows of transistors  112 , a gate driver  200  directed by a controller  202  to selectively enable transistors  112  in the respective rows, and column readout lines D 1  . . . D m  that feed the outputs of transistors  112  in respective columns to sample-and-hold (S/H)circuits  204 . A multiplexer  206  takes the output of circuits  204  and feeds analog-to-digital converters (ADC)  210 , also controlled by controller  202 . Digitized pixel values from ADC  208  are delivered to serial data port  210  and then to an image buffer, from which they can be taken for appropriate processing into image data for display, storage, transmission, etc. The pixel charges can be read out individually, or several pixels (e.g. an array of 2 by 2 pixels) can be binned into a single sample for higher reading speed at the expense of spatial resolution. The panel can be operated in a static mode for screening mammography, for example at a 28 kVp, MO/MO spectrum provided by an x-ray generator from Lorad designated M4, with an image cycle of 30 seconds and at a source-detector distance of 65 cm. For test purposes, an exposure range of 1 to 16 mR can be used, which subsumes the typical dose of 1–10 mR for breast cancer screening. Alternatively, the panel can be operated in a dynamic, tomosynthesis mode, for example using a 28 kVp, Mo/Rh spectrum, with an image cycle of 0.5 or 1.0 seconds and 2×2 pixel binning, and at exposure range of 0.5–1.5 mR per image, i.e. at a dose range per image of about a factor of 10 less than for the static, screening mode so that about 10 images can be taken in dynamic, tomosynthesis mode in one sweep of stop-and-expose imaging. 
       FIG. 3  illustrates leakage current characteristics of a thin-film transistor  112  that are particularly important for the operation of the imager of  FIGS. 1 and 2 . As seen, when the transistor is in its OFF state, and the voltage at the transistor drain  112   a  (at the junction between the respective signal storage capacitor  110  and pixel electrode  104 ) is less than about 20 volts, or at least less than somewhere in the range of about 20–25 volts, the leakage current of the transistor rises at a relatively low rate. However, with the transistor still in its OFF state, the leakage current rises at a significantly higher rate (more steeply) with rise in the voltage at  112   a  above the range of about 20–25 volts. In the example, the inflection point between low and high rates of leakage current rise is closer to 20 volts than to 25 volts. In this example, the rise above the inflection point is progressively steeper. While the exact point of inflection or range in which the point of inflection occurs may vary depending on the details of a particular TFT array, the important feature is that the leakage increase at a sufficiently high rate above a voltage range appropriate for a particular use of an imager panel to avoid voltage breakdown of (or overvoltage damage to) the transistors. 
     As illustrated in  FIG. 4 , one of the benefits of an x-ray imager of the type illustrated in  FIGS. 1–3  is a dramatic decrease in ghosting effects as compared with a prior art imager of the type illustrated in  FIG. 5 .  FIG. 3  compares ghosting of an imaging panel currently sold by Direct Radiography Corporation (standard DRC detector) with an otherwise similar panel of the type illustrated in  FIGS. 1–3  (metal on selenium detector). A significant difference between the two detectors (x-ray imaging panels) is that the standard DRC detector has a charge barrier layer (layer  502  in  FIG. 5 ) while in the metal on selenium detector the top electrode  100  is directly on the charge generator layer  102  as seen in  FIG. 1 . Indeed, the two panels can be otherwise identical, with identical TFT arrays. However, transistors  112  in the metal on selenium detector of  FIG. 1  operate in a different regime, in which they are allowed to extend the voltage at drain  112   a  into a range that the charge barrier layer  502  in the standard DRC detector was designed to prevent. 
     The low ghosting that the metal on selenium detector exhibits (the x-ray imager of  FIGS. 1–3 ) allows for rapid imaging as compared with the standard DRC detector. While the x-ray imager of  FIGS. 1–3  may use technology for erasing ghost images between x-ray exposure that is the same or similar to those used in the imagers currently sold by Direct Radiology Corporation, in the alternative it may be possible to use the imager of  FIGS. 1–3  without such erasing. 
     The top electrode  100  typically is elemental metal or an alloy or inorganic oxide such as Indium-Tin Oxide (ITO), but an organic conductor may be used instead. The material of top electrode  100  preferably has a lower work function than the underlying charge generator layer. Preferably, top electrode  100  is made of a material that would allow a free flow of negative charge from the charge generator layer  102  into electrode  100  while inhibiting the injection of positive charge from electrode  100  into charge generating layer  102 . Preferably, but not necessarily, the material of top electrode  100  has the following characteristics: work function &lt;4.0 electron volt; electrical resistivity &lt;55 u.ohm.cm; atomic number &lt;60. Further, the material of top electrode  100  preferably is chemically stable when in contact with selenium, is not flammable in solid form and is neither explosive nor corrosive, is not too toxic or carcinogenic or radioactive, and allows the formation of top electrode  100  by a deposition or other process compatible with forming the remaining structure of the imaging panel. Chromium (Cr) is believed to be an example of a suitable material that meets the criteria set forth above, for example in thickness of 1,000 Angstroms, although other thicknesses also may be suitable. ITO and Al in elemental form or as the predominant metal in an alloy with each other or with other elements, also are believed to be examples of suitable materials. The chemical stability Al, In, and Ti in elemental form or in alloys with each other or other metals, with selenium in the panel of  FIGS. 1–3  may need to be confirmed. Cs meets the other requirements, but its chemical stability with selenium may present challenges. Ba, Tb, and Be also may work if safety/health issues that they pause are overcome. Another consideration is thermal expansion compatibility with selenium, which may impose conditions on the composition of thickness of the top electrode. 
     The ability to rely on transistor leakage current to avoid breakdown under the expected operating conditions an x-ray imaging panel may be surprising given common assumptions in x-ray imaging technology. For example, in mammography uses of the prior art panel illustrated in  FIG. 5  that had been commercially available, it had been believed that without charge barrier layer  502  such a high amount of charge would accumulate at the individual signal storage capacitors  512  that the capacitor voltage would rise to a level sufficiently high to damage the dielectric in the capacitor and/or the channel in the thin film transistor  510 , leading to permanent damage of the imaging panel. One calculation assumes that the leakage current is zero, and estimates that under mammography x-ray energies the imaging panel is accumulating 4.58×10 −15  Coulomb per mR per pixel. If the maximum x-ray exposure rate is 5R/second, then the maximum accumulated charge at capacitor  512  is 2.3×10 −11  Coulomb in 1 second. This theoretical calculation leads to a voltage of 34.7 volts across signal storage capacitor  512 . In practice, in the case of a large and dense breast, the exposure rate is closer to 3 R/second. While this is the estimate assuming there is no leakage current, actual measurements of the TFT in the current mammography imaging panels ( FIG. 5 ) supplied by DRC indicate a rapidly increasing drain-to-source leakage current with increasing voltage over about 20–25 volts. At about 30 volts at the drain, the leakage current is interpolated to be 24 pA, just enough to leak away excess charge as the signal storage capacitor potential roses over 25 volts. This rapidly rising leakage current thus becomes a self-protecting mechanism, which in turn allows dispensing with a charge barrier layer such as  502  ( FIG. 5 ) and its ghosting effects. 
     Tests in the screening mode of a mammography panel according to  FIGS. 1–3 , at the parameters set forth above, suggest:
         Good linearity at the expected exposure range (see  FIG. 6   a );   Good presampling modulation transfer function (MTF) (see  FIG. 7   a );   Good noise power spectrum (NPS) as a function of spatial frequency for different exposure over the expected range (see  FIG. 8 );   Good efficiency expressed as detective quantum efficiency (DQE) as a   composite parameter that measures the efficiency of an imaging system in transferring the input signal to noise ratio at the output according to the expression
 
 DQE ( f,X )=( S ( X )× MTF ( f )) 2 /(Φ( X )× NPS ( f,X ))
           where S(X) is the measured signal at a certain exposure X, Φ(X) is the incident photon fluence per unit area at exposure X (see  FIGS. 9   a – 9   b ); and   
           Good ghosting characteristics as a function of elapsed time (see  FIG. 10 ) in a test where the imager was exposed to a large “ghost” exposure of 2.6 R with a 28 kVp, Mo/Mo spectrum, with part of the imaging surface being covered by a piece of 1.0 mm thick sheet of lead. 30 seconds later, the first read frame was acquired at a much lower dose of 9 mR, with the lead removed and the x-ray beam filtered through 4 cm of Lucite. The mean detector signals in a 256 by 256 pixel region of interest inside and outside the Lucite phantom location were compared, and ghosting magnitude was calculated as the normalized difference:
 
Ghost(%)=((signal(inside)−signal(outside))/signal(inside)×100%.
       

     Tests in the tomosynthesis mode of a mammography panel according to  FIGS. 1–3 , at the parameters set forth above, also suggest:
         Good linearity at the expected exposure range (see  FIG. 6   b );   Good presampling modulation transfer function (MTF) (see  FIG. 7   b );   Good efficiency ( FIG. 9   c ) expressed as detective quantum efficiency (DQE) calculated using the methodology used in the screening mode but at the tomosynthesis parameters;   Good image lag characteristics ( FIG. 11 ), where lag was investigated by exposing the imager to a single high exposure at 28 kVp with half the imaging area covered by a 1.0 mm thick sheet of lead, then reading out a series of dark image frames at 0.5 second intervals. Two tests were done, one with a high dose of 164 mR, the other with 58 mR. Lag was calculated as the normalized difference in the dark counts between the unshielded area exposed to the high dose and the other half that was shielded by the lead:
 
Lag(%)=((dark counts(unshielded)−dark counts(shielded))/dark counts(shielded)×100%; and
           Good residual image ghost as a function of time ( FIG. 12 ), investigated by exposing the imager to a high ghost exposure of 177 mR with a 36 kVp Mo/Rh spectrum, with a part of the imager covered with a 4.2 cm thick acylic block. A series of read dose images then followed at 1.0 second intervals, with the acrylic block removed and at 5.29 mR for each image frame.   
               

     The graphs discussed above are for a specific configuration of an example of a panel, and it should be clear that different results may be obtained with different embodiments of the invention set forth in the appended claims or with different test conditions. 
     It should be understood that the disclosure above illustrates only non-limiting examples of the claimed inventions, that variations will occur to those skilled in the pertinent technologies, and that the scope of the inventions recited in the appended claims is not limited to those examples.