ArticleRadiological physics and technology2022
Biological fingerprint for patient verification using trunk scout views at various scan ranges in computed tomography.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Identification Based on Deep Metric Learning for Preventing Human Errors in Follow-up X-Ray Examinations.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Immediate verification of whether a patient being examined is correct is desirable, even if the scan ranges change during different examinations for the same patient. This study proposes an advanced biological fingerprint technique for the rapid and reliable verification of various scan ranges in computed tomography (CT) scans of the torso of the same patient. The method comprises the following steps: geometric correction of different scans, local feature extraction, mismatch elimination, and similarity evaluation. The geometric magnification correction was aligned at the scanner table height in the first two steps, and the local maxima were calculated as the local features. In the third step, local features from the follow-up scout image are matched to those in the corresponding baseline scout image via template matching and outlier elimination via a robust estimator. We evaluated the correspondence rate based on the inlier ratio between corresponding scout images. The ratio of inliers between the baseline and follow-up scout images was assessed as the similarity score. The clinical dataset, including chest, abdomen-pelvis, and chest-abdomen-pelvis scans, included 600 patients (372 men, 68 ± 12 years) who underwent two routine torso CT examinations. The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.996, which was sufficient for patient verification. Moreover, the verification results were comparable to the conventional method, which uses scout images in the same scan range. Patient identity verification was achieved before the main scan, even in follow-up torso CT, under different scan ranges.
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.