Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28149920›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2017

Hybrid positron emission tomography segmentation of heterogeneous lung tumors using 3D Slicer: improved GrowCut algorithm with threshold initialization.

Hannah Mary T Thomas, Devadhas Devakumar, Balukrishna Sasidharan, Stephen R Bowen, Danie Kingslin Heck, E James Jebaseelan Samuel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparison of Common Methods for Precision Volume Measurement of Hematoma.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hannah Mary T ThomasVIT University , School of Advanced Sciences, Department of Physics, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632004, India.
Devadhas DevakumarChristian Medical College , Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632004, India.
Balukrishna SasidharanChristian Medical College , Department of Radiation Oncology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632004, India.
Stephen R BowenUniversity of Washington , School of Medicine, Departments of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States.
Danie Kingslin HeckChristian Medical College , Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632004, India.
E James Jebaseelan SamuelVIT University , School of Advanced Sciences, Department of Physics, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632004, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents an improved GrowCut (IGC), a positron emission tomography-based segmentation algorithm, and tests its clinical applicability. Contrary to the traditional method that requires the user to provide the initial seeds, the IGC algorithm starts with a threshold-based estimate of the tumor and a three-dimensional morphologically grown shell around the tumor as the foreground and background seeds, respectively. The repeatability of IGC from the same observer at multiple time points was compared with the traditional GrowCut algorithm. The algorithm was tested in 11 nonsmall cell lung cancer lesions and validated against the clinician-defined manual contour and compared against the clinically used 25% of the maximum standardized uptake value [SUV-(max)], 40% [Formula: see text], and adaptive threshold methods. The time to edit IGC-defined functional volume to arrive at the gross tumor volume (GTV) was compared with that of manual contouring. The repeatability of the IGC algorithm was very high compared with the traditional GrowCut ([Formula: see text]) and demonstrated higher agreement with the manual contour with respect to threshold-based methods. Compared with manual contouring, editing the IGC achieved the GTV in significantly less time ([Formula: see text]). The IGC algorithm offers a highly repeatable functional volume and serves as an effective initial guess that can well minimize the time spent on labor-intensive manual contouring.

Indexed as

GrowCutnonsmall cell lung cancerpositron emission tomography/computed tomographysegmentation

Identifiers

PMID28149920
PMCPMC5253402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.