Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28870227›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2017

Cone-beam CT reconstruction for non-periodic organ motion using time-ordered chain graph model.

Masahiro Nakano, Akihiro Haga, Jun'ichi Kotoku, Taiki Magome, Yoshitaka Masutani, Shouhei Hanaoka, Satoshi Kida, Keiichi Nakagawa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Image gradient LOptics express · 2019
    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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Masahiro NakanoDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Akihiro HagaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan. haga-haga@umin.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9220-2862
Jun'ichi KotokuFaculty of Medical Technology, Teikyo University, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8605, Japan.
Taiki MagomeFaculty of Health Sciences, Komazawa University, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 154-8525, Japan.
Yoshitaka MasutaniFaculty of Information Science, Hiroshima-City University, Hiroshima, 731-3194, Japan.
Shouhei HanaokaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
Satoshi KidaSchool of Medicine, Gunma University, Maebashi, 371-8511, Japan.
Keiichi NakagawaDepartment of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8655, Japan.
University of Tokyo Hospital · JPGunma University · JPHiroshima City University · JPKomazawa University · JPTeikyo University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to introduce the new concept of a four-dimensional (4D) cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstruction approach for non-periodic organ motion in cooperation with the time-ordered chain graph model (TCGM) and to compare it with previously developed methods such as total variation-based compressed sensing (TVCS) and prior-image constrained compressed sensing (PICCS). MATERIALS AND

methodsOur proposed reconstruction is based on a model including the constraint originating from the images of neighboring time phases. Namely, the reconstructed time-series images depend on each other in this TCGM scheme, and the time-ordered images are concurrently reconstructed in the iterative reconstruction approach. In this study, iterative reconstruction with the TCGM was carried out with 90° projection ranges. The images reconstructed by the TCGM were compared with the images reconstructed by TVCS (200° projection ranges) and PICCS (90° projection ranges). Two kinds of projection data sets-an elliptic-cylindrical digital phantom and two clinical patients' data-were used. For the digital phantom, an air sphere was contained and virtually moved along the longitudinal axis by 3 cm/30 s and 3 cm/60 s; the temporal resolution was evaluated by measuring the penumbral width of the air sphere. The clinical feasibility of the non-periodic time-ordered 4D CBCT image reconstruction was examined with the patient data in the pelvic region.

resultsIn the evaluation of the digital-phantom reconstruction, the penumbral widths of the TCGM yielded the narrowest result; the results obtained by PICCS and TCGM using 90° projection ranges were 2.8% and 18.2% for 3 cm/30 s, and 5.0% and 23.1% for 3 cm/60 s narrower than that of TVCS using 200° projection ranges. This suggests that the TCGM has a better temporal resolution, whereas PICCS seems similar to TVCS. These reconstruction methods were also compared using patients' projection data sets. Although all three reconstruction results showed motion related to rectal gas or stool, the result obtained by the TCGM was visibly clearer with less blurring.

conclusionThe TCGM is a feasible approach to visualize non-periodic organ motion. The digital-phantom results demonstrated that the proposed method provides 4D image series with a better temporal resolution compared to TVCS and PICCS. The clinical patients' results also showed that the present method enables us to visualize motion related to rectal gas and flatus in the rectum.

Indexed as

ArtifactsFour-Dimensional Computed TomographyHumansMotionRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted4D imagingChain graph modelCone-beam CTIterative reconstructionTime-ordered organ motion

Identifiers

PMID28870227
PMCPMC5584034
OpenAlexW2751292059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.