ArticleMedical physics2020
CT metal artifact reduction algorithms: Toward a framework for objective performance assessment.
Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of Synthetic Megavoltage Computed Tomography (MVCT) for Dose Calculation in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning.Cancers · 2026Article
- Model observer task-based assessment of computed tomography metal artifact reduction using a hip arthroplasty phantom.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Noise-related inaccuracies in the quantitative evaluation of CT artifacts.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Pedicle Screw Position on Computerized Tomography Using Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Software.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Metal artifact reduction on musculoskeletal CT: a phantom and clinical study.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Prediction of proton beam range in phantom with metals based on monochromatic energy CT images.Journal of radiation research · 2022Article
- Reducing metal artifacts by restricting negative pixels.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough several metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms for computed tomography (CT) scanning are commercially available, no quantitative, rigorous, and reproducible method exists for assessing their performance. The lack of assessment methods poses a challenge to regulators, consumers, and industry. We explored a phantom-based framework for assessing an important aspect of MAR performance: how applying MAR in the presence of metal affects model observer performance at a low-contrast detectability (LCD) task This work is, to our knowledge, the first model observer-based framework for the evaluation of MAR algorithms in the published literature.
methodsWe designed a numerical head phantom with metal implants. In order to incorporate an element of randomness, the phantom included a rotatable inset with an inhomogeneous background. We generated simulated projection data for the phantom. We applied two variants of a simple MAR algorithm, sinogram inpainting, to the projection data, that we reconstructed using filtered backprojection. To assess how MAR affected observer performance, we examined the detectability of a signal at the center of a region of interest (ROI) by a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO). As a figure of merit, we used the area under the ROC curve (AUC).
resultsWe used simulation to test our framework on two variants of the MAR technique of sinogram inpainting. We found that our method was able to resolve the difference in two different MAR algorithms' effect on LCD task performance, as well as the difference in task performances when MAR was applied, vs not.
conclusionWe laid out a phantom-based framework for objective assessment of how MAR impacts low-contrast detectability, that we tested on two MAR algorithms. Our results demonstrate the importance of testing MAR performance over a range of object and imaging parameters, since applying MAR does not always improve the quality of an image for a given diagnostic task. Our framework is an initial step toward developing a more comprehensive objective assessment method for MAR, which would require developing additional phantoms and methods specific to various clinical applications of MAR, and increasing study efficiency.
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.