ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
Clinical evaluation of motion robust reconstruction using deep learning in lung CT.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Deep learning-based super-resolution ultrashort echo time MRI for pulmonary nodule detection and longitudinal assessment in emphysema.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In lung CT imaging, motion artifacts caused by cardiac motion and respiration are common. Recently, CLEAR Motion, a deep learning-based reconstruction method that applies motion correction technology, has been developed. This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the clinical usefulness of CLEAR Motion. A total of 129 lung CT was analyzed, and heart rate, height, weight, and BMI of all patients were obtained from medical records. Images with and without CLEAR Motion were reconstructed, and quantitative evaluation was performed using variance of Laplacian (VL) and PSNR. The difference in VL (DVL) between the two reconstruction methods was used to evaluate which part of the lung field (upper, middle, or lower) CLEAR Motion is effective. To evaluate the effect of motion correction based on patient characteristics, the correlation between body mass index (BMI), heart rate and DVL was determined. Visual assessment of motion artifacts was performed using paired comparisons by 9 radiological technologists. With the exception of one case, VL was higher in CLEAR Motion. Almost all the cases (110 cases) showed large DVL in the lower part. BMI showed a positive correlation with DVL (r = 0.55, p < 0.05), while no differences in DVL were observed based on heart rate. The average PSNR was 35.8 ± 0.92 dB. Visual assessments indicated that CLEAR Motion was preferred in most cases, with an average preference score of 0.96 (p < 0.05). Using Clear Motion allows for obtaining images with fewer motion artifacts in lung CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40928606What 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.