ArticleMedical physics2018
Evaluation of motion artifact metrics for coronary CT angiography.
Article in Medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Model-based motion simulation framework for deep learning-assisted motion correction in dynamic wrist CT.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Cardiac CT Coronary Motion Correction Method with Temporal Weight Adjustment: Clinical Data Evaluation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Dependence of motion artifacts on the starting angle of projection data collection in a nonhelical volume scan of a 320-row CT.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiac Structural and Functional Evaluation Using a Heart Motion Correction Algorithm for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Patients With High Heart Rates.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- AI-assisted six-dimensional CT imaging for joint instability assessment.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based motion correction algorithm for coronary CT angiography: Lowering the phase requirement for morphological and functional evaluation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- High-pitch, high temporal resolution, multi-energy cardiac imaging on a dual-source photon-counting-detector CT.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Motion correction for routine X-ray lung CT imaging.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Task-dependent estimability index to assess the quality of cardiac computed tomography angiography for quantifying coronary stenosis.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021Article
- Motion-corrected coronary calcium scores by a convolutional neural network: a robotic simulating study.European radiology · 2020Article
- Cardiovascular optoacoustics: From mice to men - A review.Photoacoustics · 2019Review
- Quantitative assessment of motion effects in dual-source dual-energy CT and dual-source photon-counting detector CT.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical EngineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study quantified the performance of coronary artery motion artifact metrics relative to human observer ratings. Motion artifact metrics have been used as part of motion correction and best-phase selection algorithms for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA). However, the lack of ground truth makes it difficult to validate how well the metrics quantify the level of motion artifact. This study investigated five motion artifact metrics, including two novel metrics, using a dynamic phantom, clinical CCTA images, and an observer study that provided ground-truth motion artifact scores from a series of pairwise comparisons.
methodFive motion artifact metrics were calculated for the coronary artery regions on both phantom and clinical CCTA images: positivity, entropy, normalized circularity, Fold Overlap Ratio (FOR), and Low-Intensity Region Score (LIRS). CT images were acquired of a dynamic cardiac phantom that simulated cardiac motion and contained six iodine-filled vessels of varying diameter and with regions of soft plaque and calcifications. Scans were repeated with different gantry start angles. Images were reconstructed at five phases of the motion cycle. Clinical images were acquired from 14 CCTA exams with patient heart rates ranging from 52 to 82 bpm. The vessel and shading artifacts were manually segmented by three readers and combined to create ground-truth artifact regions. Motion artifact levels were also assessed by readers using a pairwise comparison method to establish a ground-truth reader score. The Kendall's Tau coefficients were calculated to evaluate the statistical agreement in ranking between the motion artifacts metrics and reader scores. Linear regression between the reader scores and the metrics was also performed.
resultsOn phantom images, the Kendall's Tau coefficients of the five motion artifact metrics were 0.50 (normalized circularity), 0.35 (entropy), 0.82 (positivity), 0.77 (FOR), 0.77(LIRS), where higher Kendall's Tau signifies higher agreement. The FOR, LIRS, and transformed positivity (the fourth root of the positivity) were further evaluated in the study of clinical images. The Kendall's Tau coefficients of the selected metrics were 0.59 (FOR), 0.53 (LIRS), and 0.21 (Transformed positivity). In the study of clinical data, a Motion Artifact Score, defined as the product of FOR and LIRS metrics, further improved agreement with reader scores, with a Kendall's Tau coefficient of 0.65.
conclusionThe metrics of FOR, LIRS, and the product of the two metrics provided the highest agreement in motion artifact ranking when compared to the readers, and the highest linear correlation to the reader scores. The validated motion artifact metrics may be useful for developing and evaluating methods to reduce motion in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.