ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Experimental and clinical validation of an artificial intelligence metal artifact correction algorithm for low-dose following up CT of percutaneous vertebroplasty.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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.
- Effects of iterative metal artifact reduction techniques on diagnostic performance in patients with dental artifacts on carotid computed tomography angiography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Low-dose following up computed tomography (CT) of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) that involves the use of bone cement usually suffers from lightweight metal artifacts, where conventional techniques for CT metal artifact reduction are often not sufficiently effective. This study aimed to validate an artificial intelligence (AI)-based metal artifact correction (MAC) algorithm for use in low-dose following up CT for PVP. Methods: In experimental validation, an ovine vertebra phantom was designed to simulate the clinical scenario of PVP. With routine-dose images acquired prior to the cement introduction as the reference, low-dose CT scans were taken on the cemented phantom and processed with conventional MAC and AI-MAC. The resulting image quality was compared in CT attenuation, image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), followed by a quantitative evaluation of the artifact correction accuracy based on adaptive segmentation of the paraspinal muscle. In clinical validation, ten cases of low-dose following up CT after PVP were enrolled to test the performance of diagnosing sarcopenia with measured CT attenuation per cemented vertebral segment, via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: With respect to the reference image, no significant difference was found for AI-MAC in CT attenuation, image noise, SNRs, and CNR (all P>0.05). The paraspinal muscle segmented on the AI-MAC image was 18.6% and 8.3% more complete to uncorrected and MAC images. Higher area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC analysis was found for AI-MAC (AUC =0.92) compared to the uncorrected (AUC =0.61) and MAC images (AUC =0.70). Conclusions: In low-dose following up CT for PVP, the AI-MAC has been fully validated for its superior ability compared to conventional MAC in suppressing artifacts and may be a reliable alternative for diagnosing sarcopenia.
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.