ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Impact of CT scan parameters on deformable image registration accuracy using deformable thorax phantom.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative assessment of CBCT image quality metrics and their translation to clinical Art workflow performance in breast cancer patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Performance Evaluation of Image Segmentation Using Dual-Energy Spectral CT Images with Deep Learning Image Reconstruction: A Phantom Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Impact of CT scan parameters on deformable image registration accuracy using deformable thorax phantom.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the deformable image registration (DIR) accuracy using various CT scan parameters with deformable thorax phantom. Our developed deformable thorax phantom (Dephan, Chiyoda Technol Corp, Tokyo, Japan) was used. The phantom consists of a base phantom, an inner phantom, and a motor-derived piston. The base phantom is an acrylic cylinder phantom with a diameter of 180 mm, which simulates the chest wall. The inner phantom consists of deformable, 20 mm thick disk-shaped sponges with 48 Lucite beads and 48 nylon cross-wires which simulate the vascular and bronchial bifurcations of the lung. Peak-exhale and peak-inhale images of the deformable phantom were acquired using a CT scanner (Aquilion LB, TOSHIBA). To evaluate the impact of CT scan parameters on DIR accuracy, we used the four tube voltages (80, 100, 120, and 135 kV) and six reconstruction algorithms (FC11, FC13, FC15, FC41, FC44, and FC52). Intensity-based DIR was performed between the two images using MIM Maestro (MIM software, Cleveland, USA). Fiducial markers (beads and cross-wires) based target registration error (TRE) was used for quantitative evaluation of DIR. In case with different tube voltages, the range of average TRE were 4.44-5.69 mm (reconstruction algorithm: FC13). In case with different reconstruction algorithms, the range of average TRE were 4.26-4.59 mm (tube voltage: 120 kV). The TRE were differed by up to 3.0 mm (3.96-6.96 mm) depending on the combination of tube voltage and reconstruction algorithm. Our result indicated that CT scan parameters had moderate impact of TRE, especially for reconstruction algorithms for the deformable thorax phantom.
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.