Evaluation of Motion Artifact Metrics for Coronary CT Angiography
Medical Physics
2018
- 232Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage232
- Downloads224
- Abstract Views8
Article Description
PurposeThis study quantified the performance of coronary artery motion artifact metrics relative to human observer ratings. Motion artifact metrics have been used as part of motion correction and best‐phase selection algorithms for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA). However, the lack of ground truth makes it difficult to validate how well the metrics quantify the level of motion artifact. This study investigated five motion artifact metrics, including two novel metrics, using a dynamic phantom, clinical CCTA images, and an observer study that provided ground‐truth motion artifact scores from a series of pairwise comparisons. MethodFive motion artifact metrics were calculated for the coronary artery regions on both phantom and clinical CCTA images: positivity, entropy, normalized circularity, Fold Overlap Ratio (FOR), and Low‐Intensity Region Score (LIRS). CT images were acquired of a dynamic cardiac phantom that simulated cardiac motion and contained six iodine‐filled vessels of varying diameter and with regions of soft plaque and calcifications. Scans were repeated with different gantry start angles. Images were reconstructed at five phases of the motion cycle. Clinical images were acquired from 14 CCTA exams with patient heart rates ranging from 52 to 82 bpm. The vessel and shading artifacts were manually segmented by three readers and combined to create ground‐truth artifact regions. Motion artifact levels were also assessed by readers using a pairwise comparison method to establish a ground‐truth reader score. The Kendall's Tau coefficients were calculated to evaluate the statistical agreement in ranking between the motion artifacts metrics and reader scores. Linear regression between the reader scores and the metrics was also performed. ResultsOn phantom images, the Kendall's Tau coefficients of the five motion artifact metrics were 0.50 (normalized circularity), 0.35 (entropy), 0.82 (positivity), 0.77 (FOR), 0.77(LIRS), where higher Kendall's Tau signifies higher agreement. The FOR, LIRS, and transformed positivity (the fourth root of the positivity) were further evaluated in the study of clinical images. The Kendall's Tau coefficients of the selected metrics were 0.59 (FOR), 0.53 (LIRS), and 0.21 (Transformed positivity). In the study of clinical data, a Motion Artifact Score, defined as the product of FOR and LIRS metrics, further improved agreement with reader scores, with a Kendall's Tau coefficient of 0.65. ConclusionThe metrics of FOR, LIRS, and the product of the two metrics provided the highest agreement in motion artifact ranking when compared to the readers, and the highest linear correlation to the reader scores. The validated motion artifact metrics may be useful for developing and evaluating methods to reduce motion in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) images.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know