Skip to main content
. 2024 May 13;25(7):e14386. doi: 10.1002/acm2.14386

TABLE 2.

Description of the phantom image cases and results from the assessment of metal artifacts.

kVp IQ Kernel iMAR VMI (keV) Slice Thickness (mm) DiffHU (metal‐normal) SDARTIFACT (HU) BloomVol (cm3) AmplitudeLowFreq CV (%) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 VGSUM
Case 1 120 80 Bv40f Ex 110 0.4 −86 50 61.6 42723.6 5.4 5 1 1 2 3 3 15
Case 2 120 80 Bv40f Hi 110 0.4 −66 67 61.2 43578.6 2.3 4 1 3 2 3 4 17
Case 3 120 80 Bv40f Th 110 0.4 −131 141 61.7 44911.3 3.9 2 1 2 0 0 2 7
Case 4 120 80 Bv40f None 110 0.4 −213 128 62.6 40267.9 13.8 1 4 0 0 3 4 12
Case 5 120 80 Bv40f Pa 110 0.4 −134 107 61.6 38909.2 6.6 3 2 3 2 3 4 17
Case 6 120 100 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −119 151 59.9 44501.0 11.0 3 2 3 2 4 3 17
Case 7 140 55 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −99 99 59.1 52724.3 9.5 4 5 3 1 4 1 18
Case 8 140 60 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −51 140 58.5 38961.9 3.4 5 4 3 1 4 5 22
Case 9 120 55 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −137 168 61.3 52770.9 4.0 3 2 3 1 4 5 18
Case 10 120 60 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −108 150 60.0 39782.8 5.3 3 2 3 2 4 4 18
Case 11 120 80 Bl56f Pa 110 0.4 −45 145 42.3 52021.7 3.5 4 3 2 1 2 1 13
Case 12 120 80 Bv36f Pa 110 0.4 −115 133 62.7 46673.0 13.0 4 3 3 1 3 4 18
Case 13 120 80 Bv40f Pa 110 0.4 −72 120 61.8 41604.8 4.3 2 3 3 2 3 4 17
Case 14 120 80 Bv44f Pa 110 0.4 −103 108 61.2 42936.0 1.6 4 2 3 1 3 4 17
Case 15 120 80 Bv56f Pa 110 0.4 −99 138 56.0 44470.7 5.7 3 1 1 0 2 2 9
Case 16 120 80 Qr36f Pa 110 0.4 −133 123 60.6 42913.5 2.2 4 4 3 1 3 3 18
Case 17 120 80 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −115 118 60.2 43677.7 1.8 2 4 4 3 4 3 20
Case 18 120 80 Qr44f Pa 110 0.4 −132 126 58.5 43448.0 3.8 3 4 3 1 4 3 18
Case 19 120 80 Qr40f Pa 40 0.4 −109 207 89.8 37437.5 5.4 0 2 1 0 1 0 4
Case 20 120 80 Qr40f Pa 62 0.4 −86 134 84.6 39828.3 5.7 0 4 1 0 3 3 11
Case 21 120 80 Qr40f Pa 190 0.4 −108 158 52.6 47422.1 1.1 2 2 3 1 2 3 13
Case 22 120 80 Bv40f None 70 1 −150 165 80.0 38917.6 0.8 2 4 3 2 5 5 21
Case 23 120 80 Qr40f None 70 1 −143 170 NA 40270.2 1.3 3 5 1 2 3 3 17
Case 24 120 80 Qr40f None T3D 0.4 46 211 83.3 43657.8 3.0 0 1 1 1 4 3 10
Case 25 140 80 Qr40f Pa 40 0.4 −273 275 92.7 45531.2 7.0 0 3 0 0 1 1 5
Case 26 140 80 Qr40f Pa 67 0.4 −141 143 81.5 46290.3 7.0 1 3 0 0 1 1 6
Case 27 140 80 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −121 96 59.6 56096.3 5.5 3 4 3 1 3 3 17
Case 28 140 80 Qr40f Pa T3D 0.4 −142 129 75.0 55114.1 3.4 3 6 3 3 5 3 23
Case 29 90 80 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −14 147 65.2 45112.8 2.2 1 0 3 0 2 1 7
Case 30 90 80 Qr40f Pa T3D 0.4 −170 199 85.0 45160.2 7.1 0 4 1 0 2 1 8
Case 31 120 80 Bv40f Pa T3D 0.4 −140 141 79.0 49692.4 3.0 3 5 3 1 4 3 19
Case 32 120 80 Qr40f Pa 110 0.4 −39 137 60.3 48914.2 1.5 3 4 3 1 4 4 19
Case 33 120 80 Qr40f Pa 110 1 −123 108 60.3 50246.3 2.4 3 5 3 3 3 3 20
Case 34 120 80 Qr40f Pa 110 3 −136 108 61.8 48888.0 3.7 5 4 6 2 5 3 25
Case 35 140 80 Qr40f Pa 110 1 −97 89 59.4 51022.6 2.7 4 5 3 3 4 3 22
Case 36 140 80 Qr40f Pa 110 3 −140 81 60.8 51012.5 5.4 5 5 3 3 5 4 25

Note: The acquisition parameters, kVp and IQ (image quality) level, and the reconstruction parameters, kernel, iMAR (iterative metal artifact reduction), and virtual mono‐energetic image (VMI), varied across the image cases. The results from manual ROI analyses included the difference in Hounsfield Units (HU) between areas with metal artifacts and normal tissue (DiffHU—Metal minus normal), and the standard deviation in areas affected by metal artifacts (SDARTIFACT). The volume from the blooming assessment (BloomVol) and the results from the streak artifact assessment, the amplitude of low frequencies in bin 1−2 (AmplitudeLowFreq) and the associated coefficient of variation (CV). The occurrence of grade 3, 4, and 5 responses for visual grading of metal artifact (Q1) and diagnostic interpretability (Q2–Q6), and their respective sums (VGSUM).