ArticleMedical physics2025
AAPM CT metal artifact reduction grand challenge.
Article in Medical physics, 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.
- Decoding the image: finding diagnostic signals in multi-modality abdominal artifacts.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- AAPM CT metal artifact reduction grand challenge.Medical physics · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetal artifact reduction (MAR) is a long-standing challenge in CT imaging. The presence of highly attenuating objects, such as dental fillings, hip prostheses, spinal screws/rods, and gold fiducial markers, can introduce severe streak artifacts in CT images, often reducing their diagnostic value. Existing CT MAR studies typically define their own test cases and evaluation metrics, making it difficult to objectively and comprehensively compare the performance of different MAR methods. There is a widespread need for a universal CT MAR image quality benchmark to evaluate the clinical impact of new MAR methods and compare them to state-of-the-art techniques. PURPOSE: The goal of the AAPM CT Metal Artifact Reduction (CT-MAR) grand challenge was to create and distribute a clinically representative 2D MAR performance benchmark, and to invite participants to objectively compare the performance of their MAR methods based on this benchmark. A secondary goal was to facilitate MAR development by disseminating a MAR training database and tools. After completion of the grand challenge, the MAR benchmark and the MAR training database will remain publicly accessible for future MAR developments and benchmarking.
methodsGrand challenge participants were invited to submit results for their MAR algorithm. The challenge organizers provided 14,000 CT training datasets generated using a hybrid data simulation framework that combined real patient images-including lung, abdomen, liver, head, and pelvis-with virtual metal objects. Each training dataset included five types of data: CT sinograms (uncorrected and metal-free), CT reconstructed images (uncorrected and metal-free), and metal masks. In the final evaluation phase, 29 clinical uncorrected datasets with metal were provided in both the sinogram and image domains for participants to process with their MAR algorithms. Their results were evaluated using eight clinically relevant image quality metrics. The final ranking was determined and compared to an established normalized metal artifact reduction (NMAR) reference method. Additionally, we conducted a survey to better understand the methodologies used by participants.
resultsA total of 106 teams registered for the challenge, with 26 teams completing all phases of the challenge. 92% of these-including all top ten teams-used a deep learning (DL) approach, employing a variety of network architectures such as UNet, ResNet, GAN, diffusion models, and transformers. Additionally, 22% of the teams-including the top three teams-utilized a combination of sinogram- and image-domain approaches. The results showed a broad distribution of the scores. Overall, the competition was marked by diverse methods and a wide range of results, including some truly exceptional results. More than 70% of the teams achieved a better overall score than the popular baseline NMAR method.
conclusionsThe CT-MAR grand challenge provided an opportunity to benchmark state-of-the-art MAR algorithms. Our hybrid data generation framework was a powerful tool for simulating large-scale realistic datasets for MAR algorithm development. A clinically relevant universal MAR benchmark offered an objective and meaningful way to compare different approaches. The training data and benchmark were published online to support future MAR development.
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.