ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2017
Comprehensive preclinical evaluation of a multi-physics model of liver tumor radiofrequency ablation.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2017. 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.
- Clinical evaluation of in silico planning and real-time simulation of hepatic radiofrequency ablation (ClinicIMPPACT Trial).European radiology · 2020Trial
- Computer-assisted Treatment Planning and Mathematical Modeling for Percutaneous Liver Tumor Ablation: An Updated Survey.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Review
- Domain Heterogeneity in Radiofrequency Therapies for Pain Relief: A Computational Study with Coupled Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Computer-assisted planning for a concentric tube robotic system in neurosurgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
- Ultrasound thermal monitoring with an external ultrasound source for customized bipolar RF ablation shapes.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim at developing a framework for the validation of a subject-specific multi-physics model of liver tumor radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
methodsThe RFA computation becomes subject specific after several levels of personalization: geometrical and biophysical (hemodynamics, heat transfer and an extended cellular necrosis model). We present a comprehensive experimental setup combining multimodal, pre- and postoperative anatomical and functional images, as well as the interventional monitoring of intra-operative signals: the temperature and delivered power.
resultsTo exploit this dataset, an efficient processing pipeline is introduced, which copes with image noise, variable resolution and anisotropy. The validation study includes twelve ablations from five healthy pig livers: a mean point-to-mesh error between predicted and actual ablation extent of 5.3 ± 3.6 mm is achieved.
conclusionThis enables an end-to-end preclinical validation framework that considers the available dataset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28097603What 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.