ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Physics-informed sinogram completion for metal artifact reduction in non-contrast brain CT images with neurovascular coils: comparison with traditional and deep learning-based methods.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Enhancing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Sinograms via Budget-Constrained PSO-Nelder-Mead: A Vision Transformer Assessment.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroudMetal artifacts from neurovascular coil affect image quality in computed tomography (CT), we aim to use Physics-informed sinogram completion (PISC) to reduce metal artifacts, and compare with two traditional metal artifact reduction (MAR) methods -- Normalized MAR (NMAR), Metal Artifact Reduction for Orthopedic Implants (O-MAR) and two deep learning (DL) based methods -- convolutional neural network based metal artifact reduction (CNN-MAR) and dual domain network (DuDoNet).
methods40 consecutive patients who underwent endovascular coil embolization for intracranial aneurysms between July 2021 to December 2022 were included, all of whom underwent brain CT examinations. Above methods were compared quantitatively by calculating the artifact index (AI). Two blinded radiologists independently evaluated these MAR methods using a five-point scale, assessing metal artifact severity and diagnose confidence, resolution, new artifacts and the contours of different soft tissue interfaces. Friedman M test was used for quantitative and qualitative evaluation.
resultsThe AI value were significantly lower in DuDoNet images when compared with FBP, NMAR, O-MAR, CNN-MAR images (p < 0.001), although no statistically significant when compared with PISC images (p = 0.181). For metal artifact severity and diagnosis confidence score, PISC method was significantly higher than FBP, NMAR, O-MAR and DuDoNet methods (all p < 0.05), although no statistically significant when compared with CNN-MAR method (p = 1.000). The resolution and contours of different soft tissue interfaces score were lower in DuDoNet images when compared with other images (all p < 0.001). The PISC method introduces the least new artifacts among these MAR methods. In addition, using traditional or DL based methods, we found new lesion obscured by metal artifacts in two cases.
conclusionsFor quantitative image analysis, DuDoNet achieved the best image quality. For qualitative image analysis, PISC achieved the best image quality. DuDoNet method can cause over-smoothing and blurring effect. PISC method introduce least new artifact.
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.