ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2017
Visualization of 4D multimodal imaging data and its applications in radiotherapy planning.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Visualization of 4D multimodal imaging data and its applications in radiotherapy planning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the benefit of using 4D multimodal visualization and interaction techniques for defined radiotherapy planning tasks over a treatment planning system used in clinical routine (C-TPS) without dedicated 4D visualization.
methodsWe developed a 4D visualization system (4D-VS) with dedicated rendering and fusion of 4D multimodal imaging data based on a list of requirements developed in collaboration with radiation oncologists. We conducted a user evaluation in which the benefits of our approach were evaluated in comparison to C-TPS for three specific tasks: assessment of internal target volume (ITV) delineation, classification of tumor location in peripheral or central, and assessment of dose distribution. For all three tasks, we presented test cases for which we measured correctness, certainty, consistency followed by an additional survey regarding specific visualization features.
resultsLower quality of the test ITVs (ground truth quality was available) was more likely to be detected using 4D-VS. ITV ratings were more consistent in 4D-VS and the classification of tumor location had a higher accuracy. Overall evaluation of the survey indicates 4D-VS provides better spatial comprehensibility and simplifies the tasks which were performed during testing.
conclusionsThe use of 4D-VS has improved the assessment of ITV delineations and classification of tumor location. The visualization features of 4D-VS have been identified as helpful for the assessment of dose distribution during user testing.
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.