SU‐E‐I‐13: Evaluation of Metal Artifact Reduction (MAR) Software On Computed Tomography (CT) Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A new commercially available metal artifact reduction (MAR) software in computed tomography (CT) imaging was evaluated with phantoms in the presence of metals. The goal was to assess the ability of the software to restore the CT number in the vicinity of the metals without impacting the image quality. Methods: A Catphan 504 was scanned with a GE Optima RT 580 CT scanner (GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) and the images were reconstructed with and without the MAR software. Both datasets were analyzed with Image Owl QA software (Image Owl Inc, Greenwich, NY). CT number sensitometry, MTF, low contrast, uniformity, noise and spatial accuracy were compared for scans with and without MAR software. In addition, an in‐house made phantom was scanned with and without a stainless steel insert at three different locations. The accuracy of the CT number and metal insert dimension were investigated as well. Results: Comparisons between scans with and without MAR algorithm on the Catphan phantom demonstrate similar results for image quality. However, noise was slightly higher for the MAR algorithm. Evaluation of the CT number at various locations of the in‐house made phantom was also performed. The baseline HU, obtained from the scan without metal insert, was compared to scans with the stainless steel insert at 3 different locations. The HU difference between the baseline scan versus metal scan was improved when the MAR algorithm was applied. In addition, the physical diameter of the stainless steel rod was over‐estimated by the MAR algorithm by 0.9 mm. Conclusion: This work indicates with the presence of metal in CT scans, the MAR algorithm is capable of providing a more accurate CT number without compromising the overall image quality. Future work will include the dosimetric impact on the MAR algorithm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".