ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Quantitative phantom-based comparison of commercial CT metal artifact reduction algorithms.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMetal artifacts in computed tomography (CT) significantly compromise image quality and CT number (CTN) accuracy, which may influence downstream applications such as radiation therapy workflows. Although commercial metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms are widely used, their performance varies across vendors and clinical scenarios, and standardized methods for quantitative comparison remain limited. PURPOSE: This study quantitatively compares four commercial MAR algorithms using standardized metrics and a novel analytical approach.
methodsA custom-designed resin phantom with interchangeable inserts (solid water, aluminum, titanium, and stainless steel) was scanned using four CT systems: Canon, GE, Philips, and Siemens. Each system's proprietary MAR algorithm was applied to obtain artifact-reduced image sets. Quantitative analysis employed complementary methods: (1) circular profile analysis measuring mean CTN deviations at concentric distances from metal objects; (2) geometric accuracy assessment of metal objects; and (3) volumetric artifact characterization using analysis of severe artifact voxels and composite error metric (M-error index) that integrates both artifact extent and intensity. Color maps and accumulated histograms of ΔCTN values between pre- and post-MAR images were used to characterized artifact patterns and MAR performance.
resultsAll four MAR methods showed minimal |ΔCTN| at mid (2.80 cm) and far (3.80 cm) distances but showed pronounced increases in |ΔCTN| near the metal interface at the closest radius (1.27 cm). Smart-MAR exhibited the highest CTN deviation for aluminum (16.83 HU), while O-MAR showed the largest deviations for titanium and stainless steel (42.40 and 42.60 HU). Quantitative evaluation showed that single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) and iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) achieved the most consistent geometric accuracy (<5%) across all metals. O-MAR showed the highest accuracy for titanium (approximately 0.36%) but larger deviations for aluminum (approximately 9%), while Smart-MAR exhibited the greatest errors exceeding 19% for both titanium and stainless steel. SEMAR, Smart-MAR, and iMAR showed lower M Error values (0.00-0.83) than O-MAR, which showed significantly higher values (1.15-2.45).
conclusionSEMAR and iMAR achieved the most consistent geometric accuracy (<5% error) and artifact suppression across all metals, while O-MAR demonstrated material-dependent performance with substantial residual artifacts near metal interfaces. These phantom-based benchmarks provide vendor-neutral performance data on MAR performance under controlled settings.
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.