Cited by 1,688Advanced X-ray and CT ImagingMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and Imaging

Artifacts in CT: Recognition and Avoidance

Barrett, Julia F., Keat, Nicholas·2004·RadioGraphics

Abstract

Artifacts can seriously degrade the quality of computed tomographic (CT) images, sometimes to the point of making them diagnostically unusable. To optimize image quality, it is necessary to understand why artifacts occur and how they can be prevented or suppressed. CT artifacts originate from a range of sources. Physics-based artifacts result from the physical processes involved in the acquisition of CT data. Patient-based artifacts are caused by such factors as patient movement or the presence of metallic materials in or on the patient. Scanner-based artifacts result from imperfections in scanner function. Helical and multisection technique artifacts are produced by the image reconstruction process. Design features incorporated into modern CT scanners minimize some types of artifacts, and some can be partially corrected by the scanner software. However, in many instances, careful patient positioning and optimum selection of scanning parameters are the most important factors in avoiding CT artifacts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/rg.246045065

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The large extracranial metal components and dental cement of the implant can cause beam hardening that can appear as cupping, streaks, dark bands or flare in the μCT.

    “the large extracranial metal components and dental cement of the implant can cause beam hardening that can appear as cupping, streaks, dark bands or flare in the µCT38–40.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barrett, J. F., & Keat, N.
Affiliations
St George's Hospital (GB)
Venue
RadioGraphics
Published
2004-11
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
1679-1691
ISSN
  • 0271-5333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1323
OpenAlex
W2130005339
Cited by
1,688
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 128 · 2018: 143 · 2017: 104 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 82 · 2013: 100 · 2012: 69
FWCI
7.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Radiographics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
Keywords
CT artifacts, artifact detection, artifact avoidance, image quality, metallic artifacts, image reconstruction artifacts, patient positioning, scanning parameters, scanner design
MeSH terms
Humans, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Artifacts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review