ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Reducing Metal Artifacts in Clinical Photon Counting Detector Computed Tomography-A Phantom Study of an Exemplary Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric pseudo-tumor of the ischio-pubic ramus in virtual non-calcium photon-counting scanner: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Middle Ear Prostheses Using Photon-Counting Detector CT versus Conventional CT.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Reduction of Metal Artefacts in Pediatric Imaging - New Possibilities Through Photon Counting Computed Tomography.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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
objectiveTo examine how different photon-counting detector (PCD) CT scanning and reconstruction methods affect the volume of metal artifacts and image quality for a hip prosthesis phantom.
methodsA titanium and cobalt-chromium-molybdenum-alloy total hip prosthesis phantom was scanned using a clinical PCD-CT with a constant tube potential (140 kV) and Computed-Tomography-Dose- Index (7 mGy). Different scan settings were used: with/without tin-filter (Sn), with/without ultra-high resolution (UHR), both individually and combined, resulting in four modes: Quantumplus (Standard), UHR Quantumplus (HighRes), QuantumSn (Standard-Tin) and UHR QuantumSn (HighRes-Tin). Reconstructions included virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) spanning 40-190 keV and polychromatic images, with/without iterative metal artifact reduction (MAR). Artifact volumes rendered in a 3D-printing software were quantified in milliliters (ml), and image quality was evaluated using a Likert score.
resultsPolychromatic reconstruction: Tin-filter reduced artifact volumes (298 (Standard-Tin) vs. 347 ml (Standard) and 310 (HighRes-Tin) vs. 360 ml (HighRes)). The smallest artifact volume was measured in HighRes MAR (150 ml). VMI reconstruction: The smallest artifact volume was measured in Standard 130 keV (150 ml) and HighRes 130 keV (164 ml) and in Standard-Tin 120 keV (169 ml) and HighRes-Tin 120 keV (172 ml). MAR further reduced the artifact volumes to 130 ml (Standard 150 keV MAR) and 140 ml (HighRes 160 keV MAR). Image quality was rated best for Standard 65 keV MAR, polychromatic HighRes MAR, Standard 100 keV MAR, polychromatic Standard-tin MAR, HighRes-tin 100 keV and polychromatic HighRes-tin.
conclusionCombining tin-filter, UHR and MAR in VMI or polychromatic images achieve the strongest artifact reduction.
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.