Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34450337›Full record

ArticlePractical radiation oncology

Synthetic Computed Tomography Generation from 0.35T Magnetic Resonance Images for Magnetic Resonance-Only Radiation Therapy Planning Using Perceptual Loss Models.

Xue Li, Poonam Yadav, Alan B McMillan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Practical radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. MR-linac: role of artificial intelligence and automation.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xue LiDepartments of Radiology.
Poonam YadavHuman Oncology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Alan B McMillanDepartments of Radiology. Electronic address: amcmillan@uwhealth.org.
Macmillan Cancer Support · GBUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

Improved Techniques for Substitute CT Generation from MRI datasetsR01EB026708 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI MCMILLAN, ALAN BLAIR · 2018 to 2021
$1.8M
Can machines be trusted? Robustification of deep learning for medical imagingR01LM013151 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI GARRETT, JOHN WILLIAM, MCMILLAN, ALAN BLAIR · 2020 to 2023
$1.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026708NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013151
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides excellent soft-tissue contrast, which makes it useful for delineating tumor and normal structures in radiation therapy planning, but MRI cannot readily provide electron density for dose calculation. Computed tomography (CT) is used but introduces registration uncertainty between MRI and CT. Previous studies have shown that synthetic CTs (sCTs) can be generated directly from MRI images with deep learning methods. However, mainly high-field MRI images have been validated. This study tested whether acceptable sCTs for MR-only radiation therapy planning can be synthesized using an integrated MR-guided linear accelerator at 0.35T, using MRI images and treatment plans in the liver region. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two models were investigated in this study: a convolutional neural network (Unet) with conventional mean square error (MSE) loss and a Unet using a secondary convolutional neural network for perceptual loss. A total of 37 cases were used in this study with 10-fold cross validation, and 37 treatment plans were generated and evaluated for target coverage and dose to organs at risk (OARs) in the MSE loss model, perceptual loss model, and original CT.

resultsThe sCTs predicted by the perceptual loss model had improved subjective visual quality compared with those predicted by the MSE loss model, but both were similar in mean absolute error (MAE), peak-signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and normalized cross-correlation (NCC). The MAE, PSNR, and NCC for the perceptual loss model were 35.64, 24.11, and 0.9539, respectively, and those for the MSE loss model were 35.67, 24.36, and 0.9566, respectively. No significant differences in target coverage and dose to OARs were found between the sCT predicted by the perceptual loss model or by the MSE model and the original CT image.

conclusionsThis study indicated that a Unet with both MSE loss and perceptual loss models can be used for generating sCT images from a 0.35T integrated MR linear accelerator.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID34450337
PMCPMC8741640
OpenAlexW3195279129

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.