ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Impact of Combined Deep Learning Image Reconstruction and Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm on CT Image Quality in Different Scanning Conditions for Maxillofacial Region with Metal Implants: A Phantom Study.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metal Artifact Reduction in Oral Cavity MDCT Using Dental Overlays and the O-MAR Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine: Current applications in cardiology, oncology, and radiology.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the impact of combining deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) and metal artifacts reduction (MAR) algorithms on the quality of CT images with metal implants under different scanning conditions. Four images of the maxillofacial region in pigs were taken using different metal implants for evaluation. The scans were conducted at three different dose levels (CTDIvol: 20/10/5 mGy). The images were reconstructed using three different methods: filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction with Veo at a 50% level (AV50), and DLIR at three levels (low, medium, and high). Regions of interest (ROIs) were identified in various tissues (near/far/reference fat, muscle, bone) both with and without metal implants and artifacts. Parameters such as standard deviation (SD), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and metal artifact index (MAI) were calculated. Additionally, two experienced radiologists evaluated the subjective image quality (IQ) using a 5-point Likert scale. (1) Both observers rated MAR generated significantly lower artifact scores than non-MAR in all types of tissues (P < 0.01), except for the far shadow and bloom in bone (phantoms 1, 3, 4) and the far bloom in muscle (phantom 3) without significant differences (P = 1.0). (2) Under the same scanning condition, DLIR at three levels produced a smaller SD than those of FBP and AV50 (P < 0.05). (3) Compared to FBP and AV50, DLIR denoted a better reduction of MAI and improvement of SNR and CNR (P < 0.05) for most tissues between the four phantoms. (4) Subjective overall IQ was superior with the increasement of DLIR level (P < 0.05) and both observers agreed that DLIR produced better artifact reductions compared with FBP and AV50. The combination of DLIR and MAR algorithms can enhance image quality, significantly reduce metal artifacts, and offer high clinical value.
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.