ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2020
Automatic generation of three-dimensional dose reconstruction data for two-dimensional radiotherapy plans for historically treated patients.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performing large-scale three-dimensional radiation dose reconstruction for patients requires a large amount of manual work. We present an image processing-based pipeline to automatically reconstruct radiation dose. The pipeline was designed for childhood cancer survivors that received abdominal radiotherapy with anterior-to-posterior and posterior-to-anterior field set-up. First, anatomical landmarks are automatically identified on two-dimensional radiographs. Second, these landmarks are used to derive parameters to emulate the geometry of the plan on a surrogate computed tomography. Finally, the plan is emulated and used as input for dose calculation. For qualitative evaluation, 100 cases of automatic and manual plan emulations were assessed by two experienced radiation dosimetrists in a blinded comparison. The two radiation dosimetrists approved 100%/100% and 92%/91% of the automatic/manual plan emulations, respectively. Similar approval rates of 100% and 94% hold when the automatic pipeline is applied on another 50 cases. Further, quantitative comparisons resulted in on average
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.