ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022
Evaluating principal component analysis models for representing anatomical changes in head and neck radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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.
- Triggered plan adaptation using multi-image optimization for improved robustness in head-and-neck cancer proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- An Implicit Registration Framework Integrating Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks with Velocity Regularization for Image-Guided Radiation Therapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Anatomical changes during radiotherapy pose a challenge to robustness of plans. Principal component analysis (PCA) is commonly used to model such changes. We propose a toolbox to evaluate how closely a given PCA model can represent actual deformations seen in the patient and highlight regions where the model struggles to capture these changes. Materials and methods: We propose to calculate a residual error map from the difference between an actual displacement vector field (DVF) and the closest DVF that the PCA model can produce. This was done by taking the inner product of the DVF with the PCA components from the model. As a global measure of error, the 90th percentile of the residual errors Results: For our example cases, the oropharyngeal and the nasal cavity regions showed the largest local residual error, indicating the PCA models struggle to predict deformations seen in these regions. Conclusions: A method to quantitatively evaluate how well PCA models represent observed anatomical changes was proposed. We demonstrated our approach on H&N PCA models, but it can be applied to other sites.
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.