MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304987437 · doi:10.1002/mp.16049

Metal artifact correction in photon‐counting detector computed tomography: metal trace replacement using high‐energy data

2022· article· en· W4304987437 on OpenAlexaff
Devon Richtsmeier, J. William O’Connell, Pierre‐Antoine Rodesch, Kris Iniewski, Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsRedlen Technologies (Canada)University of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomCadmium zinc tellurideIterative reconstructionDetectorImage qualityPhoton countingArtifact (error)Energy (signal processing)TomographyNuclear medicineData setOpticsMaterials sciencePhysicsMedical physicsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMedicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Metal artifacts have been an outstanding issue in computed tomography (CT) since its first uses in the clinic and continue to interfere. Metal artifact reduction (MAR) methods continue to be proposed and photon‐counting detectors (PCDs) have recently been the subject of research toward this purpose. PCDs offer the ability to distinguish the energy of incident x‐rays and sort them in a set number of energy bins. High‐energy data captured using PCDs have been shown to reduce metal artifacts in reconstructions due to reduced beam hardening. Purpose High‐energy reconstructions using PCD‐CT have their drawbacks, such as reduced image contrast and increased noise. Here, we demonstrate a MAR algorithm, trace replacement MAR (TRMAR), in which the data corrupted by metal artifacts in full energy spectrum projections are corrected using the high‐energy data captured during the same scan. The resulting reconstructions offer similar MAR to that seen in high‐energy reconstructions, but with improved image quality. Methods Experimental data were collected using a bench‐top PCD‐CT system with a cadmium zinc telluride PCD. Simulations were performed to determine the optimal high‐energy threshold and to test TRMAR in simulations using the XCAT phantom and a biological sample. For experiments a 100‐mm diameter cylindrical phantom containing vials of water, two screws, various densities of Ca(ClO4)2, and a spatial resolution phantom was imaged with and without the screws. The screws were segmented in the initial reconstruction and forward projected to identify them in the sinogram space in order to perform TRMAR. The resulting reconstructions were compared to the control and to reconstructions corrected using normalized metal artifact reduction (NMAR). Additionally, a beef short rib was imaged with and without metal to provide a more realistic phantom. Results XCAT simulations showed a reduction in the streak artifact from −978 HU in uncorrected images to −10 HU with TRMAR. The magnitude of the metal artifact in uncorrected images of the 100‐mm phantom was −442 HU, compared to the desired −81 HU with no metal. TRMAR reduced the magnitude of the artifact to −142 HU, with NMAR reducing the magnitude to −96 HU. Relative image noise was reduced from 176% in the high‐energy image to 56% using TRMAR. Density quantification was better with NMAR, with the Ca(ClO4)2 vial affected most by metal artifacts showing 0.8% error compared to 2.1% with TRMAR. Small features were preserved to a greater extent with TRMAR, with the limiting spatial frequency at 20% of the MTF fully maintained at 1.31 lp/mm, while with NMAR it was reduced to 1.22 lp/mm. Images of the beef short rib showed better delineation of the shape of the metal using TRMAR. Conclusions NMAR offers slightly better performance compared to TRMAR in streak reduction and image quality metrics. However, TRMAR is less susceptible to metal segmentation errors and can closely approximate the reduction in the streak metal artifact seen in NMAR at 1/3 the computation time. With the recent introduction of PCD‐CT into the clinic, TRMAR offers notable potential for fast, effective MAR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207