Please don’t make sweeping, generalizing opinions on the implications of the work. It’s a subjective problem to solve, so if are not a radiologist who has first-hand experience with this issue, stop.
Here are the results from the paper:
The radiologists ranked our adversarial approach as better than the standard and dithering approaches with an aver-
age rank of 2.83 out of a possible 3. This result is statisti- cally significantly better than either alternative with p-values 1.09 × 10−11 and 2.18 × 10−11 respectively, and the adver- sarial approach was ranked as the best or tied for best in 85.8% of 120 total evaluations (95% CI: 0.78-0.91). The dithering approach is also statistically significantly better than the standard approach.
We also asked radiologists if banding was present (in any form) in the reconstructions in each case. This evaluation is highly subjective, as “banding” is hard to define in a pre- cise enough way to ensure consistency between evaluators. Considering each radiologist’s evaluation independently, on average banding is still reported to be present in 72.5% (95% CI: 0.62-0.82) of cases even with the adversarial learn- ing penalty. The radiologists were not consistent in their rankings; the overall percentages reported by the six radiol- ogists were 20%, 75%, 75%, 80%, 85%, and 100% for the adversarial reconstructions. In contrast, for the baseline and dithered reconstructions, only one radiologist reported less than 100% presence of banding for each method (80% and 85% presence respectively, from different radiologists).
We believe these numbers could be improved if more tuning went into the model; however, it’s also possible that features of the sub-sampled reconstructions generally may be con- fused with banding, and so any method using sub-sampling might be considered by radiologists as having banding. Sub- sampled reconstructions generally have cleaner regional boundaries and lower noise levels than the corresponding ground-truth.