Final answer:
The false statement is that the resolution of the second set of images is better than the first set after reconstruction with a different FOV and magnification. Resolution depends on pixel size relative to FOV, so it remains the same when only FOV is changed and all other factors are kept constant.
Step-by-step explanation:
When discussing the impact of reconstructing images with different fields of view (FOV) and magnifying them to have the same apparent size, it's important to consider the impact on resolution, noise, and patient dose. Given that the second set of images is reconstructed with a 300 mm reconstruction FOV compared to the first set's 150 mm, and then magnified, the following statements can be evaluated:
- The resolution of the second set of images is not necessarily better than the first set. Realistically, it's the pixel size relative to the FOV that determines resolution, and if the pixel size is kept the same but the FOV is doubled, the resolution would remain the same, not improve.
- The apparent noise in the second set of images may be more pronounced than the first set, as by magnifying the images, the noise is also magnified, making it appear more visible.
- The patient dose of the first set of images is not higher than the second. Since all other parameters are kept constant, the patient dose is unchanged between the two sets of images.
Therefore, the false statement is that the resolution of the second set of images is better than the first set. This conclusion is based on the understanding that resolution is dependent on pixel size and FOV, and that magnification without changing these parameters does not alter resolution.