ArticleLa Radiologia medica2021
Performance of a deformable image registration algorithm for CT and cone beam CT using physical multi-density geometric and digital anatomic phantoms.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A survey on deep learning in medical image registration: New technologies, uncertainty, evaluation metrics, and beyond.Medical image analysis · 2025Review
- Cone beam computed tomography based image guidance and quality assessment of prostate cancer for magnetic resonance imaging-only radiotherapy in the pelvis.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo study the accuracy of deformable registration algorithm for CT and cone beam CT (CBCT) using a combination of physical and digital phantoms. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe physical phantoms consisted of objects over a range of electron densities, shape and sizes. The system was tested for simple and complex scenarios including performance in the presence of metallic artefacts. Clinically present deformations were simulated using a set of five geometric and anatomic virtual phantoms.
resultsThe system could not account for large changes in size, shape and Hounsfield units. Deformations of low intensity structures and small objects were highly inaccurate, and errors were prominent for volume reduction scenario than volume growth. The presence of artefacts did alter the performance of the algorithm. Objects of low density and that close to artefacts were affected the most. Overall, deformations to CBCT were poor. In virtual phantoms, the system could not handle gas pockets and deformation errors in inverse direction were higher than that in forward direction.
conclusionThe algorithm was tested for several non-clinical and clinical scenarios. The performance was acceptable for realistic and clinically present deformations. However, it is necessary to tread cautiously for structures with small volumes and large reductions in volume.
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.