Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We present a conditional flow-matching framework for image-domain metal artifact reduction (CFM-MAR) in head-and-neck CT, compared with linear-interpolation MAR (LI-MAR) and normalized MAR (NMAR). Trained on the public AAPM CT-MAR head subset (1,626 slices), CFM-MAR reduced patient-region root-mean-square error (RMSE) on the slice-level test set from 228.1 to 44.5 ± 23.0 Hounsfield units (HU), against 53.0 ± 72.5 HU for NMAR and 75.1 HU for LI-MAR. Per slice, CFM-MAR and NMAR were not significantly different ( p = 0.14); the lower mean was driven by a shorter error tail: no slice was worse than no correction and the worst slice reached 172 HU, against four worsened slices and a maximum RMSE of 854 HU for NMAR. Under leave-one-examination-out training, mean RMSE increased to 64.1 HU, exceeding NMAR (56.2 HU), while the tail advantage persisted. On 50 clinical planning CTs CFM-MAR suppressed streaks but partially filled internal air cavities. Blinded readers preferred its output to that of a matched direct-regression network with lower benchmark distortion, including for contouring. These findings are based solely on imaging measurements; dosimetric analysis, contouring validation, workflow validation and external HU validation remain to be performed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: