ArticleScientific reports2023
First validation of a model-based hepatic percutaneous microwave ablation planning on a clinical dataset.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Thermal Ablation: Current Applications and Future Directions in Microwave Technologies.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Optimizing microwave ablation planning with the ablation success ratio.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of 433 MHz double-slot microwave antennas for double-zone ablation in ex vivo swine liver experiment.PloS one · 2025Article
- Treatment Planning Strategies for Interstitial Ultrasound Ablation of Prostate Cancer.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A model-based planning tool, integrated in an imaging system, is envisioned for CT-guided percutaneous microwave ablation. This study aims to evaluate the biophysical model performance, by comparing its prediction retrospectively with the actual ablation ground truth from a clinical dataset in liver. The biophysical model uses a simplified formulation of heat deposition on the applicator and a heat sink related to vasculature to solve the bioheat equation. A performance metric is defined to assess how the planned ablation overlaps the actual ground truth. Results demonstrate superiority of this model prediction compared to manufacturer tabulated data and a significant influence of the vasculature cooling effect. Nevertheless, vasculature shortage due to branches occlusion and applicator misalignment due to registration error between scans affects the thermal prediction. With a more accurate vasculature segmentation, occlusion risk can be estimated, whereas branches can be used as liver landmarks to improve the registration accuracy. Overall, this study emphasizes the benefit of a model-based thermal ablation solution in better planning the ablation procedures. Contrast and registration protocols must be adapted to facilitate its integration into the clinical workflow.
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.