ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Quantitative evaluation of the performance of different deformable image registration algorithms in helical, axial, and cone-beam CT images using a mobile phantom.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel evaluation model of image registration for cone-beam computed tomography guided lung cancer radiotherapy.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Dynamic CT myocardial perfusion without image registration.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Comparison of an in-house hybrid DIR method to NiftyReg on CBCT and CT images for head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this project is to investigate quantitatively the performance of different deformable image registration algorithms (DIR) with helical (HCT), axial (ACT), and cone-beam CT (CBCT). The variations in the CT-number values and lengths of well-known targets moving with controlled motion were evaluated. Four DIR algorithms: Demons, Fast-Demons, Horn-Schunck and Lucas-Kanade were used to register intramodality CT images of a mobile phantom scanned with different imaging techniques. The phantom had three water-equivalent targets inserted in a low-density foam with different lengths (10-40 mm) and moved with adjustable motion amplitudes (0-20 mm) and frequencies (0-0.5 Hz). The variations in the CT-number level, volumes and shapes of these targets were measured from the spread-out of the CT-number distributions. In CBCT, most of the DIR algorithms were able to produce the actual lengths of the mobile targets; however, the CT-number values obtained from the DIR algorithms deviated from the actual CT-number of the targets. In HCT, the DIR algorithms were successful in deforming the images of the mobile targets to the images of the stationary targets producing the CT-number values and lengths of the targets for motion amplitudes <20 mm. Similarly in ACT, all DIR algorithms produced the actual CT-number values and lengths of the stationary targets for low-motion amplitudes <15 mm. The optical flow-based DIR algorithms such as the Horn-Schunck and Lucas-Kanade performed better than the Demons and Fast-Demons that are based on attraction forces particularly at large motion amplitudes. In conclusion, most of the DIR algorithms did not reproduce well the CT-number values and lengths of the targets in images that have artifacts induced by large motion amplitudes. The deviations in the CT-number values and variations in the volume of the mobile targets in the deformed CT images produced by the different DIR algorithms need to be considered carefully in the treatment planning for accurate dose calculation dose coverage of the tumor, and sparing of critical structures.
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.