An opposite view data replacement approach for reducing artifacts due to metallic dental objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present a conceptually new method for metal artifact reduction (MAR) that can be used on patients with multiple objects within the scan plane that are also of small sized along the longitudinal (scanning) direction, such as dental fillings. METHODS: The proposed algorithm, named opposite view replacement, achieves MAR by first detecting the projection data affected by metal objects and then replacing the affected projections by the corresponding opposite view projections, which are not affected by metal objects. The authors also applied a fading process to avoid producing any discontinuities in the boundary of the affected projection areas in the sinogram. A skull phantom with and without a variety of dental metal inserts was made to extract the performance metric of the algorithm. A head and neck case, typical of IMRT planning, was also tested. RESULTS: The reconstructed CT images based on this new replacement scheme show a significant improvement in image quality for patients with metallic dental objects compared to the MAR algorithms based on the interpolation scheme. For the phantom, the authors showed that the artifact reduction algorithm can efficiently recover the CT numbers in the area next to the metallic objects. CONCLUSIONS: The authors presented a new and efficient method for artifact reduction due to multiple small metallic objects. The obtained results from phantoms and clinical cases fully validate the proposed approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".