Frequently Encountered Artifacts in the Application of <scp>Dual‐Energy</scp> Computed Tomography to Cardiovascular Imaging for Urate Crystals in Gout: A <scp>Matched‐Control</scp> Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is surging interest in using dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to identify cardiovascular monosodium urate (MSU) deposits in patients with gout. We sought to examine the prevalence and characterization of cardiovascular DECT artifacts using non-electrocardiogram (EKG)-gated DECT pulmonary angiograms. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed non-EKG-gated DECT pulmonary angiograms performed on patients with and without gout at a single academic center. We noted the presence and locations of vascular green colorization using the default postprocessing two-material decomposition algorithm for MSU. The high- and low-energy grayscale images and advanced DECT measurements were used to determine whether they were true findings or artifacts. We classified artifacts into five categories: streak, contrast medium mixing, misregistration due to motion, foreign body, and noise. RESULTS: Our study included CT scans from 48 patients with gout and 48 age- and sex-matched controls. The majority of patients were male with a mean age of 67 years. Two independent observers attributed all areas of vascular green colorization to artifacts. The most common types of artifacts were streak (56% vs 57% between patients and controls, respectively) and contrast medium mixing (51% vs 65%, respectively). Whereas some of the default DECT measurements of cardiovascular green colorization were consistent with values reported for subcutaneous tophi, advanced DECT measurements were not consistent with that of tophi. CONCLUSION: Artifacts that could be misconstrued as cardiovascular MSU deposits were commonly identified in patients with and without gout on non-EKG-gated DECT pulmonary angiograms. These artifacts can inform future vascular DECT studies on patients with gout to minimize false-positive findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".