ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Factors modulating
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- When is patient-specific lung shunt fraction necessary inRadiology advances · 2026Article
- Q.Liver software for the planning of treatment of liver cancer via transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 resin microspheres based on single-photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Addressing lung truncation inEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Factors modulatingJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the accuracy and biases of predicted lung shunt fraction (LSF) and lung dose (LD) calculations via METHODS AND MATERIALS: LSFs in 52 planning and LDs in 44 treatment procedures were retrospectively calculated, in consecutive radioembolization patients over a 2 year interval, using
resultsStandard-of-care LSF using geometric mean of lung and liver contours had median (range) absolute over-estimation of 4.4 percentage points (pp) (0.9 to 11.9 pp) from SPECT/CT LSF. Using anterior views only decreased LSF errors (2.4 pp median, -1.1 to +5.7 pp range). Planar LD over-estimations decreased when using single-view versus geometric-mean LSF (1.3 vs. 2.6 Gy median and 7.2 vs. 18.5 Gy maximum using 1000 g lung mass) but increased when using patient-specific versus standard-man lung mass (2.4 vs. 1.3 Gy median and 11.8 vs. 7.2 Gy maximum using single-view LSF).
conclusionsCalculating planar LSF from lung and liver contours of a single view and planar LD using that same LSF and 1000 g lung mass was found to improve accuracy and minimize bias in planar lung dosimetry.
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.