Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30818292›Full record

ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2019

MRI-based synthetic CT generation using semantic random forest with iterative refinement.

Yang Lei, Joseph Harms, Tonghe Wang, Sibo Tian, Jun Zhou, Hui-Kuo Shu, Jim Zhong, Hui Mao, Walter J Curran, Tian Liu and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. MRI classification using semantic random forest with auto-context model.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Knowledge-based radiation treatment planning: A data-driven method survey.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021
    Review
  14. A review of deep learning based methods for medical image multi-organ segmentation.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for medical imaging: A technology review.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Deep learning in medical image registration: a review.Physics in medicine and biology · 2020
    Review
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

11 authors.

Yang LeiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Joseph HarmsDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Tonghe WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Sibo TianDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Jun ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Hui-Kuo ShuDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Jim ZhongDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Hui MaoDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Walter J CurranDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Tian LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.
Xiaofeng YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, United States of America.

Funding

Multiparametric MRI-guided Prostate HDR Brachytherapy with Focal Tumor BoostR01CA215718 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI YANG, XIAOFENG · 2018 to 2022
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA215718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Target delineation for radiation therapy treatment planning often benefits from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to x-ray computed tomography (CT) due to MRI's superior soft tissue contrast. MRI-based treatment planning could reduce systematic MR-CT co-registration errors, medical cost, radiation exposure, and simplify clinical workflow. However, MRI-only based treatment planning is not widely used to date because treatment-planning systems rely on the electron density information provided by CTs to calculate dose. Additionally, air and bone regions are difficult to separategiven their similar intensities in MR imaging. The purpose of this work is to develop a learning-based method to generate patient-specific synthetic CT (sCT) from a routine anatomical MRI for use in MRI-only radiotherapy treatment planning. An auto-context model with patch-based anatomical features was integrated into a classification random forest to generate and improve semantic information. The semantic information along with anatomical features was then used to train a series of regression random forests based on the auto-context model. After training, the sCT of a new MRI can be generated by feeding anatomical features extracted from the MRI into the well-trained classification and regression random forests. The proposed algorithm was evaluated using 14 patient datasets withT1-weighted MR and corresponding CT images of the brain. The mean absolute error (MAE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and normalized cross correlation (NCC) were 57.45  ±  8.45 HU, 28.33  ±  1.68 dB, and 0.97  ±  0.01. We also compared the difference between dose maps calculated on the sCT and those on the original CT, using the same plan parameters. The average DVH differences among all patients are less than 0.2 Gy for PTVs, and less than 0.02 Gy for OARs. The sCT generation by the proposed method allows for dose calculation based MR imaging alone, and may be a useful tool for MRI-based radiation treatment planning.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBone NeoplasmsBrain NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedSemanticsTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID30818292
PMCPMC7778365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.