ArticleScientific reports2024
Reducing image artifacts in sparse projection CT using conditional generative adversarial networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- No Reproducibility, No Progress: Rethinking CT Benchmarking.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
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
Reducing the amount of projection data in computed tomography (CT), specifically sparse-view CT, can reduce exposure dose; however, image artifacts can occur. We quantitatively evaluated the effects of conditional generative adversarial networks (CGAN) on image quality restoration for sparse-view CT using simulated sparse projection images and compared them with autoencoder (AE) and U-Net models. The AE, U-Net, and CGAN models were trained using pairs of artifacts and original images; 90% of patient cases were used for training and the remaining for evaluation. Restoration of CT values was evaluated using mean error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE). The image quality was evaluated using structural image similarity (SSIM) and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR). Image quality improved in all sparse projection data; however, slight deformation in tumor and spine regions was observed, with a dispersed projection of over 5°. Some hallucination regions were observed in the CGAN results. Image resolution decreased, and blurring occurred in AE and U-Net; therefore, large deviations in ME and MAE were observed in lung and air regions, and the SSIM and PSNR results were degraded. The CGAN model achieved accurate CT value restoration and improved SSIM and PSNR compared to AE and U-Net models.
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.