ArticleJournal of radiation research2022
Fully automated rigid image registration versus human registration in postoperative spine stereotactic body radiation therapy: a multicenter non-inferiority study.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re-irradiation spine stereotactic body radiotherapy following high-dose conventional radiotherapy for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a retrospective study.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Image Registration in Longitudinal Bone Assessment Using Computed Tomography.Current osteoporosis reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To confirm the fully automated rigid image registration (A-RIR) accuracy in postoperative spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), we conducted a multicenter non-inferiority study compared to the human rigid image registration (H-RIR). Twenty-eight metastatic cancer patients who underwent postoperative spine SBRT are enrolled-image registration (IR) of planning computed tomography (CT) and CT-myelogram for delineating the spinal cord. The adopted A-RIR workflow is a contour-focused algorithm performing a rigid registration by maximizing normalized mutual information (NMI) restricted to the data contained within the automatically extracted contour. Three radiation oncologists (ROs) from multicenters were prompted to review two blinded registrations and choose one for clinical use. Indistinguishable cases were allowed to vote equivalent, counted A-RIR side. A-RIR is considered non-inferior to H-RIR if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of A-RIR preferable/equivalent is greater than 0.45. We also evaluated the NMI improvement from the baseline and the translational/rotational errors between A-RIR and H-RIR. The A-RIR preferable/equivalent was selected in 21 patients (0.75, 95% CI: 0.55-0.89), demonstrating non-inferiority to H-RIR. The A-RIR's NMI improvement was greater than H-RIR in 24 patients: the mean value ± SD was 0.225 ± 0.115 in A-RIR and 0.196 ± 0.114 in H-RIR (P < 0.001). The absolute translational error was 0.38 ± 0.31 mm. The rotational error was -0.03 ± 0.20, 0.05 ± 0.19, -0.04 ± 0.20 degrees in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes (range: -0.66-0.52). In conclusion, A-RIR shows non-inferior to H-RIR in CT and CT-myelogram registration for postoperative spine SBRT 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.