ArticlePloS one2020
Three-dimensional visualization of brain tumor progression based accurate segmentation via comparative holographic projection.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporally consistent longitudinal brain tumor segmentation using a temporal spatial transformer network.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing light efficiency in phase-only holograms via neural network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of Nd:YAG fourth harmonic (266 nm) in comparison with ArF excimer (193 nm) in laser corneal reshaping: ex vivo pilot study.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Review of computer-generated hologram algorithms for color dynamic holographic three-dimensional display.Light, science & applications · 2022Review
- Discrimination between normal and cancer white blood cells using holographic projection technique.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose a new optical method based on comparative holographic projection for visual comparison between two abnormal follow-up magnetic resonance (MR) exams of glioblastoma patients to effectively visualize and assess tumor progression. First, the brain tissue and tumor areas are segmented from the MR exams using the fast marching method (FMM). The FMM approach is implemented on a computed pixel weight matrix based on an automated selection of a set of initialized target points. Thereafter, the associated phase holograms are calculated for the segmented structures based on an adaptive iterative Fourier transform algorithm (AIFTA). Within this approach, a spatial multiplexing is applied to reduce the speckle noise. Furthermore, hologram modulation is performed to represent two different reconstruction schemes. In both schemes, all calculated holograms are superimposed into a single two-dimensional (2D) hologram which is then displayed on a reflective phase-only spatial light modulator (SLM) for optical reconstruction. The optical reconstruction of the first scheme displays a 3D map of the tumor allowing to visualize the volume of the tumor after treatment and at the progression. Whereas, the second scheme displays the follow-up exams in a side-by-side mode highlighting tumor areas, so the assessment of each case can be fast achieved. The proposed system can be used as a valuable tool for interpretation and assessment of the tumor progression with respect to the treatment method providing an improvement in diagnosis and treatment planning.
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.