Table 4.

Qualitative image quality for reviewer 2

Images Quality Score
Descriptive Statistics					Pairwise Comparison P
A	Mean ± SD	Score range	Friedman Test p	Reconstruction method	FBP	NMAR	O-MAR	PISC	CNN- MAR	DuDoNet
	2.15 ± 0.58	1–3	<0.001	FBP	-
	2.38 ± 0.54	1–3		NMAR	1.000	-
	2.55 ± 0.64	1–4		O-MAR	0.837	1.000	-
	3.58 ± 0.96	2–5		PISC	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	-
	3.28 ± 0.60	2–4		CNN-MAR	<0.001	<0.001	0.002	1.000	-
	2.78 ± 0.70	1–4		DuDoNet	0.017	0.297	1.000	0.011	0.197	-
B
	3.00 ± 0.00	3–3	<0.001	FBP	-
	3.00 ± 0.00	3–3		NMAR	1.000	-
	3.00 ± 0.00	3–3		O-MAR	1.000	1.000	-
	3.00 ± 0.00	3–3		PISC	1.000	1.000	1.000	-
	2.95 ± 0.22	2–3		CNN-MAR	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	-
	2.15 ± 0.36	2–3		DuDoNet	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	-
C
	1.00 ± 0.00	1–1	<0.001	FBP	-
	2.43 ± 0.50	2–3		NMAR	<0.001	-
	1.85 ± 0.48	1–3		O-MAR	<0.001	0.028	-
	1.25 ± 0.44	1–2		PISC	1.000	<0.001	0.002	-
	1.43 ± 0.50	1–2		CNN-MAR	0.214	<0.001	0.075	1.000	-
	2.18 ± 0.45	1–3		DuDoNet	<0.001	1.000	0.837	<0.001	<0.001	-
D
	4.00 ± 0.00	4–4	<0.001	FBP	-
	3.93 ± 0.27	3–4		NMAR	1.000	-
	3.93 ± 0.27	3–4		O-MAR	1.000	1.000	-
	3.93 ± 0.27	3–4		PISC	1.000	1.000	1.000	-
	3.93 ± 0.27	3–4		CNN-MAR	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	-
	2.98 ± 0.28	2–4		DuDoNet	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	-

Qualitative score ratings and statistical results of (A) metal artifacts severity and diagnostic confidence, (B) resolution, (C) the extent of new artifacts, and (D) the contours of different soft tissue interfaces

Statistically significant results are highlighted in bold in the table

SD, standard deviation