Balancing Efficiency and Restoration: Lightweight Mamba-Based Model for CT Metal Artifact Reduction
Authors: Weikai Qu, Sijun Liang, Xianfeng Li, Cheng Pan, An Yan, Ahmed Elazab, Shanzhou Niu, Dong Zeng, +2 more
Organizations: New York University, America · BaiyunPort, China · University of Technology Sydney, Australia · Sanda University, China · Shan Dong Xiehe College, China · Tsinghua University, China · Gannan Normal University, China · Southern Medical University, China · Shenzhen Research Institute of Big Data, China
In computed tomography imaging, metal implants frequently generate severe artifacts that compromise image quality and hinder diagnostic accuracy. There are three main challenges in the existing methods: the deterioration of organ and tissue structures, dependence on sinogram data, and an imbalance between resource use and restoration efficiency. Addressing these issues, we introduce MARMamba, which effectively eliminates artifacts caused by metals of different sizes while maintaining the integrity of the original anatomical structures of the image. Furthermore, this model only focuses on CT images affected by metal artifacts, thus negating the requirement for additional input data. The model is a streamlined UNet architecture, which incorporates multi-scale Mamba (MS-Mamba) as its core module. Within MS-Mamba, a flip mamba block captures comprehensive contextual information by analyzing images from multiple orientations. Subsequently, the average maximum feed-forward network integrates critical features with average features to suppress the artifacts. This combination allows MARMamba to reduce artifacts efficiently. The experimental results demonstrate that our model excels in reducing metal artifacts, offering distinct advantages over other models. It also strikes an optimal balance between computational demands, memory usage, and the number of parameters, highlighting its practical utility in the real world. The code of the presented model is available at: https://github.com/RICKand-MORTY/MARMamba.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: MARMamba backbone architecture. It consists of upsampling and downsampling components, each comprising three stages, with MS-Mamba serving as the core module for every stage.
Fig. 2: Internal structure of MS-Mamba, which consists of two components: FMB and AMFN. The right side displays the internal details of those two modules.
Model
Large
Medium
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
InDuDoNet [ 1 ]
39.77 ± 3.60
0.9881 ± 0.0051
3.30 ± 1.26
0.0576 ± 0.0176
41.72 ± 4.19
0.9926 ± 0.0022
2.76 ± 1.58
0.0430 ± 0.0111
InDuDoNet+ [ 6 ]
38.29 ± 3.36
0.9858 ± 0.0049
3.93 ± 1.97
0.0639 ± 0.0164
40.72 ± 3.74
0.9904 ± 0.0029
3.02 ± 1.54
0.0501 ± 0.0122
OSCNet [ 12 ]
41.14 ± 2.83
0.9910 ± 0.0023
2.77 ± 1.18
0.0476 ± 0.0128
41.08 ± 4.24
0.9923 ± 0.0023
3.00 ± 1.88
0.0401 ± 0.0112
OSCNet+ [ 13 ]
41.51 ± 2.96
0.9911 ± 0.0023
2.66 ± 1.17
0.0474 ± 0.0126
41.88 ± 3.88
0.9928 ± 0.0019
2.69 ± 1.61
0.0400 ± 0.0112
MEPNet [ 7 ]
38.28 ± 3.33
0.9852 ± 0.0073
3.90 ± 1.55
0.0648 ± 0.0194
42.90 ± 3.78
0.9922 ± 0.0021
2.36 ± 1.27
0.0488 ± 0.0144
TABLE I: Quantitative comparison experiments. Evaluate the effectiveness of metal artifact restoration for large and medium sizes using the PSNR( ↑ ), SSIM( ↑ ), RMSE( ↓ ), LPIPS( ↓ ) metrics (Non-metallic area) . Each grid cell represents the mean ± standard deviation. The optimal mean values highlighted in bold red .
Model
Small
Tiny
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
InDuDoNet [ 1 ]
46.37 ± 2.17
0.9949 ± 0.0011
1.47 ± 0.41
0.0375 ± 0.0092
46.72 ± 2.13
0.9953 ± 0.0008
1.41 ± 0.40
0.0364 ± 0.0087
InDuDoNet+ [ 6 ]
46.72 ± 2.10
0.9940 ± 0.0013
1.41 ± 0.38
0.0414 ± 0.0101
47.42 ± 1.80
0.9946 ± 0.0009
1.29 ± 0.29
0.0392 ± 0.0096
OSCNet [ 12 ]
46.24 ± 2.46
0.9948 ± 0.0012
1.51 ± 0.46
0.0339 ± 0.0090
47.17 ± 2.26
0.9952 ± 0.0009
1.35 ± 0.44
0.0325 ± 0.0091
OSCNet+ [ 13 ]
46.49 ± 2.45
0.9948 ± 0.0012
1.47 ± 0.44
0.0339 ± 0.0093
47.37 ± 2.33
0.9952 ± 0.0009
1.32 ± 0.43
0.0325 ± 0.0092
MEPNet [ 7 ]
47.79 ± 1.79
0.9943 ± 0.0012
1.24 ± 0.28
0.0430 ± 0.0122
48.16 ± 1.70
0.9946 ± 0.0011
1.19 ± 0.28
0.0413 ± 0.0120
TABLE II: Quantitative comparison experiments. Evaluate the effectiveness of metal artifact restoration for small and tiny sizes using the PSNR( ↑ ), SSIM( ↑ ), RMSE( ↓ ), LPIPS( ↓ ) metrics (Non-metallic area) . Each grid cell represents the mean ± standard deviation. The optimal mean values highlighted in bold red .
Model
Large
Medium
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
InDuDoNet [ 1 ]
34.62 ± 2.95
0.9801 ± 0.0074
5.83 ± 1.93
0.0708 ± 0.0214
37.54 ± 3.47
0.9893 ± 0.0036
4.31 ± 2.21
0.0485 ± 0.0126
InDuDoNet+ [ 6 ]
34.40 ± 4.02
0.9792 ± 0.0069
6.29 ± 2.96
0.0768 ± 0.0187
39.47 ± 3.61
0.9884 ± 0.0035
3.45 ± 1.60
0.0550 ± 0.0129
OSCNet [ 12 ]
39.20 ± 3.00
0.9874 ± 0.0035
3.47 ± 1.37
0.0582 ± 0.0156
40.28 ± 4.05
0.9906 ± 0.0030
3.24 ± 1.86
0.0443 ± 0.0122
OSCNet+ [ 13 ]
39.60 ± 3.06
0.9876 ± 0.0035
3.32 ± 1.36
0.0578 ± 0.0152
41.09 ± 3.77
0.9912 ± 0.0025
2.91 ± 1.63
0.0442 ± 0.0119
MEPNet [ 7 ]
36.53 ± 3.07
0.9795 ± 0.0090
4.71 ± 1.70
0.0764 ± 0.0228
40.68 ± 3.45
0.9900 ± 0.0028
2.98 ± 1.34
0.0532 ± 0.0152
TABLE III: Quantitative comparison experiments. Evaluate the effectiveness of metal artifact restoration for large and medium sizes using the PSNR( ↑ ), SSIM( ↑ ), RMSE( ↓ ), LPIPS( ↓ ) metrics (metal-included region) . Each grid cell represents the mean ± standard deviation. The optimal mean values highlighted in bold red font .
Model
Small
Tiny
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
RMSE
LPIPS
InDuDoNet [ 1 ]
43.81 ± 3.98
0.9937 ± 0.0022
2.25 ± 2.11
0.0410 ± 0.0101
46.57 ± 2.11
0.9949 ± 0.0009
1.44 ± 0.40
0.0383 ± 0.0091
InDuDoNet+ [ 6 ]
45.95 ± 2.52
0.9935 ± 0.0015
1.56 ± 0.49
0.0446 ± 0.0105
46.98 ± 2.01
0.9942 ± 0.0011
1.37 ± 0.33
0.0416 ± 0.0098
OSCNet [ 12 ]
46.02 ± 2.49
0.9944 ± 0.0013
1.55 ± 0.47
0.0364 ± 0.0097
47.10 ± 2.27
0.9950 ± 0.0009
1.36 ± 0.44
0.0343 ± 0.0096
OSCNet+ [ 13 ]
46.26 ± 2.49
0.9945 ± 0.0013
1.51 ± 0.46
0.0364 ± 0.0099
47.30 ± 2.34
0.9950 ± 0.0009
1.33 ± 0.43
0.0342 ± 0.0097
MEPNet [ 7 ]
45.80 ± 1.67
0.9934 ± 0.0013
1.55 ± 0.34
0.0461 ± 0.0131
47.98 ± 1.66
0.9943 ± 0.0011
1.21 ± 0.28
0.0433 ± 0.0126
TABLE IV: Quantitative comparison experiments. Evaluate the effectiveness of metal artifact restoration for small and tiny sizes using the PSNR( ↑ ), SSIM( ↑ ), RMSE( ↓ ), LPIPS( ↓ ) metrics (metal-included region) . Each grid cell represents the mean ± standard deviation. The optimal mean values highlighted in bold red font .
Model
Time/s
Param/M
InDuDoNet [ 1 ]
0.2537±0.0037
5.09
InDuDoNet+ [ 6 ]
0.2521±0.0041
1.75
OSCNet [ 12 ]
0.0181±0.0004
1.27
OSCNet+ [ 13 ]
0.0243±0.0006
1.28
MEPNet [ 7 ]
0.3585±0.0168
4.72
DICDNet [ 41 ]
0.0187±0.0007
1.28
TABLE V: Parameters vs. Inference Time
Fig. 3: Large-scale visual comparison of metallic implants. The input image is selected from the SynDeepLesion [ 1 ] dataset. The red regions in the images indicate the locations of metallic components. To better visualize fine details, only the content within the blue bounding boxes is displayed for each model. A Hounsfield Unit (HU) window of [-175 HU, 275 HU] is used for visualization.
Fig. 4: Medium metallic implants. The input image is selected from the SynDeepLesion [ 1 ] dataset. The HU window is set to the range of [-175 HU, 275 HU].
Fig. 5: Small metallic implants. The input image is selected from the SynDeepLesion [ 1 ] dataset. The HU window is set to the range of [-175 HU, 275 HU].
Fig. 6: Tiny metallic implants. The input image is selected from the SynDeepLesion [ 1 ] dataset. The HU window is set to the range of [-175 HU, 275 HU].
Model
Score
InDuDoNet [ 1 ]
3.489±1.223
InDuDoNet+ [ 6 ]
3.586±1.194
OSCNet [ 12 ]
3.409±1.252
OSCNet+ [ 13 ]
3.863 ±1.120
ACDNet [ 11 ]
3.806±1.217
MEPNet [ 7 ]
3.294±1.310
TABLE VI: Real‑World Scene Restoration Effectiveness Rating (1–5 Scale)
Fig. 7: Visual comparison in real-world scenarios. Excluding the input image, the visual images of the other models display the inner regions marked by the red rectangles. The display window is [-175HU, 275HU].
Fig. 8: Comparison of computational complexity and memory overhead. Bubble size is proportional to MACs . Disable gradient during evaluation.
Fig. 9: Image size vs. resource consumption. Disable gradient during testing.
Normal
Horizontal
Vertical
PSNR/SSIM/RMSE
Param/M
Time/ms
✓
48.2703/0.9938/1.2469
0.47
32.4
✓
✓
48.6277/0.9941/1.1908
0.53
34.1
✓
✓
✓
49.2559/0.9948/1.0784
0.59
36.2
TABLE VII: Ablation experiments within the FMB. ✓indicating enablement of each branch in the orientation scanning stage. Red bold font indicates the best value.
Fig. 10: Feature visualization of the FMB. From left to right, the panels illustrate the input image, the Mamba output corresponding to the original (unflipped) input, the output of the Mamba block under horizontal flipping, and the output under vertical flipping. The regions enclosed by red rectangles indicate the locations of metallic implants, which serve as the primary sources of artifacts. The display window of input image is [-175HU, 275HU].
Average
Maximum
PSNR/SSIM/RMSE
Time/ms
✓
48.5776/0.9940/1.2013
36.6
✓
48.4413/0.9940/1.2337
35.3
✓
✓
49.2559/0.9948/1.0784
36.2
TABLE VIII: Ablation experiments within the AMB. ✓indicating enablement of each pooling layer. Red bold text highlights the optimal value.
Fig. 11: Directional energy log-ratio of MS-Mamba branches. Positive values indicate orientations where the flipped branches selectively enhance structural responses relative to the non-flipped branch, while negative values indicate suppression.
Loss
PSNR ↑ /SSIM ↑ /RMSE ↓
Pseudo-Huber
48.4497/0.9944/1.1849
LPIPS
46.1632/0.9931/1.5145
Pseudo-Huber+LPIPS
49.2559/0.9948/1.0784
TABLE IX: Loss Function Ablation Experiment.
Fig. 12: Error maps between restored images and ground truths. Samples selected from the SynDeepLesion test set [ 1 ] . Magnified details are provided below each image for observation. Red indicates the absolute error between the repaired image and the ground truth. To highlight the errors, the error values have been amplified by a factor of two. The metal-containing area was preserved in the restored image. HU window: [-175 HU, +275 HU].
Metal artifacts from high-attenuation implants severely degrade CT image quality, obscuring critical anatomical structures and posing a challenge for standard deep learning methods that require extensive paired training data. We propose a paradigm shift: reframing artifact reduction as an in-context reasoning task by adapting a general-purpose vision-language diffusion foundation model via parameter-efficient Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). By leveraging rich visual priors, our approach achieves effective artifact suppression with only 16 to 128 paired training examples reducing data requirements by two orders of magnitude. Crucially, we demonstrate that domain adaptation is essential for hallucination mitigation; without it, foundation models interpret streak artifacts as erroneous natural objects (e.g., waffles or petri dishes). To ground the restoration, we propose a multi-reference conditioning strategy where clean anatomical exemplars from unrelated subjects are provided alongside the corrupted input, enabling the model to exploit category-specific context to infer uncorrupted anatomy. Extensive evaluation on the AAPM CT-MAR benchmark demonstrates that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on perceptual and radiological-feature metrics . This work establishes that foundation models, when appropriately adapted, offer a scalable alternative for interpretable, data-efficient medical image reconstruction. Code is available at https://github.com/ahmetemirdagi/CT-EditMAR.
Ahmet Rasim Emirdagi, Süleyman Aslan, Mısra Yavuz +5
An X-ray computed tomography (CT), metal artifact reduction (MAR) remains a major challenge because metallic implants violate standard CT forward-model assumptions, producing severe streaking and shadowing artifacts that degrade diagnostic quality. We propose MGMAR, a metal-guided MAR method that explicitly leverages metal-related information throughout the reconstruction pipeline. MGMAR first generates a high-quality prior image by training a conditioned implicit neural representation (INR) using metal-unaffected projections, and then incorporates this prior into a normalized MAR (NMAR) framework for projection completion. To improve robustness under severe metal corruption, we pretrain the encoder-conditioned INR on paired metal-corrupted and artifact-free CT images, thereby embedding data-driven prior knowledge into the INR parameter space. This prior-embedded initialization reduces sensitivity to random initialization and accelerates convergence during measurement-specific refinement. The encoder takes a metal-corrupted reconstruction together with a recursively constructed metal artifact image, enabling the latent field to capture metal-dependent global artifact patterns. After projection completion using the INR prior, we further suppress residual artifacts using a metal-conditioned correction network, where the metal mask modulates intermediate features via adaptive instance normalization to target metal-dependent secondary artifacts while preserving anatomical structures. Experiments on the public AAPM-MAR benchmark demonstrate that MGMAR achieves state-of-the-art performance, attaining an average final score of 0.89 on 29 clinical test cases.
Hyoung Suk Park, Kiwan Jeon
National Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Daejeon, 34047, Republic of Korea
X-ray computed tomography (CT) suffers from severe metal artifacts when high-attenuation objects such as dental fillings or orthopedic implants are present. These artifacts originate from the polychromatic nature of X-rays, where attenuation varies strongly with photon energy and material composition, breaking the monochromatic assumption used by conventional reconstruction algorithms. Recent neural rendering approaches attempt to address this mismatch through differentiable polychromatic projection models, but they still struggle with smoothness bias, loss of fine structures, and prohibitive computation when extended to large-scale cone-beam CT. We introduce a splat-based metal artifact reduction framework that incorporates a physically grounded polychromatic forward model into a continuous Gaussian representation for cone-beam CT. Each Gaussian encodes the energy-dependent attenuation of the underlying material using a compact material parameterization, which enables efficient joint optimization of geometric and material properties without relying on a metal mask. This compact attenuation formulation captures the essential variation across biological tissues and metallic implants, allowing our model to explain metal-induced nonlinearity while preserving high-frequency structure. Experiments on simulated and real cone-beam CT scans show that our method converges significantly faster and suppresses metal artifacts more effectively than existing reconstruction and neural field-based approaches.