ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Comparison of an in-house hybrid DIR method to NiftyReg on CBCT and CT images for head and neck cancer.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of an in-house hybrid DIR method to NiftyReg on CBCT and CT images for head and neck cancer.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An in-house hybrid deformable image registration (DIR) method, which combines free-form deformation (FFD) and the viscous fluid registration method, is proposed. Its results on the planning computed tomography (CT) and the day 1 treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) image from 68 head and neck cancer patients are compared with the results of NiftyReg, which uses B-spline FFD alone. Several similarity metrics, the target registration error (TRE) of annotated points, as well as the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Hausdorff distance (HD) of the propagated organs at risk are employed to analyze their registration accuracy. According to quantitative analysis on mutual information, normalized cross-correlation, and the absolute pixel value differences, the results of the proposed DIR are more similar to the CBCT images than the NiftyReg results. Smaller TRE of the annotated points is observed in the proposed method, and the overall mean TRE for the proposed method and NiftyReg was 2.34 and 2.98 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean DSC in the larynx, spinal cord, oral cavity, mandible, and parotid given by the proposed method ranged from 0.78 to 0.91, significantly higher than the NiftyReg results (ranging from 0.77 to 0.90), and the HD was significantly lower compared to NiftyReg. Furthermore, the proposed method did not suffer from unrealistic deformations as the NiftyReg did in the visual evaluation. Meanwhile, the execution time of the proposed method was much higher than NiftyReg (96.98 ± 11.88 s vs. 4.60 ± 0.49 s). In conclusion, the in-house hybrid method gave better accuracy and more stable performance than NiftyReg.
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.