ArticleJournal of digital imaging2019
Automatic Mapping of CT Scan Locations on Computational Human Phantoms for Organ Dose Estimation.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2019. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconstruction of organ doses for patients undergoing computed tomography examinations in Canada 1992-2019.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To develop an algorithm to automatically map CT scan locations of patients onto computational human phantoms to provide with patient-specific organ doses. We developed an algorithm that compares a two-dimensional skeletal mask generated from patient CTs with that of a whole body computational human phantom. The algorithm selected the scan locations showing the highest Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) calculated between the skeletal masks of a patient and a phantom. To test the performance of the algorithm, we randomly selected five sets of neck, chest, and abdominal CT images from the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. We first automatically mapped scan locations of the CT images on a computational human phantom using our algorithm. We had several radiologists to manually map the same CT images on the phantom and compared the results with the automated mapping. Finally, organ doses for automated and manual mapping locations were calculated by an in-house CT dose calculator and compared to each other. The visual comparison showed excellent agreement between manual and automatic mapping locations for neck, chest, and abdomen-pelvis CTs. The difference in mapping locations averaged over the start and end in the five patients was less than 1 cm for all neck, chest, and AP scans: 0.9, 0.7, and 0.9 cm for neck, chest, and AP scans, respectively. Five cases out of ten in the neck scans show zero difference between the average manual and automatic mappings. Average of absolute dose differences between manual and automatic mappings was 2.3, 2.7, and 4.0% for neck, chest, and AP scans, respectively. The automatic mapping algorithm provided accurate scan locations and organ doses compared to manual mapping. The algorithm will be useful in cases requiring patient-specific organ dose for a large number of patients such as patient dose monitoring, clinical trials, and epidemiologic studies.
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.