ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016
Evaluation of the ΔV 4D CT ventilation calculation method using in vivo xenon CT ventilation data and comparison to other methods.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review on functional lung avoidance radiotherapy plan for lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Prediction of radiation pneumonitis with machine learning using 4D-CT based dose-function features.Journal of radiation research · 2022Article
- A novel lung-avoidance planning strategy based on 4DCT ventilation imaging and CT density characteristics for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer patients.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- N-Phase Local Expansion Ratio for Characterizing Out-of-Phase Lung Ventilation.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2020Article
- Evaluation of lung toxicity risk with computed tomography ventilation image for thoracic cancer patients.PloS one · 2018Article
- Ventilation Series Similarity: A Study for Ventilation Calculation Using Deformable Image Registration and 4DCT to Avoid Motion Artifacts.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ventilation distribution calculation using 4D CT has shown promising potential in several clinical applications. This study evaluated the direct geometric ventilation calculation method, namely the ΔV method, with xenon-enhanced CT (XeCT) ventilation data from four sheep, and compared it with two other published meth-ods, the Jacobian and the Hounsfield unit (HU) methods. Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) were used for the evaluation and comparison. The average SCC with one standard deviation was 0.44 ± 0.13 with a range between 0.29 and 0.61 between the XeCT and ΔV ventilation distributions. The average DSC value for lower 30% ventilation volumes between the XeCT and ΔV ventilation distributions was 0.55 ± 0.07 with a range between 0.48 and 0.63. Ventilation difference introduced by deformable image registration errors improved with smoothing. In conclusion, ventilation distributions generated using ΔV-4D CT and deformable image registration are in reasonably agreement with the in vivo XeCT measured ventilation distribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.