ReviewCancers2023
Computational Modeling of Thermal Ablation Zones in the Liver: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dielectric properties, thermal properties, blood perfusion rate: which biophysical parameter is the leading source of variability of microwave ablation models in lung?International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2026Article
- Percutaneous thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive review of current evidence and future directions.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Computer-assisted Treatment Planning and Mathematical Modeling for Percutaneous Liver Tumor Ablation: An Updated Survey.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Commentary on "Impact of Tumour Size on Outcomes of Hepatic Arteriography and C-Arm CT-Guided Ablation (HepACAGA): > 3 cm is no Absolute Contraindication"-Pushing the Boundaries of Liver Tumour Ablation.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Thermal Ablation: Current Applications and Future Directions in Microwave Technologies.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Role of Computational Modelling in Enhancing Thermal Safety During Cardiac Ablation.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Review
- Optimizing microwave ablation planning with the ablation success ratio.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of CT-Guided Microwave Ablation of Liver Malignancies with and Without Intra-Arterial Catheter Placement for Contrast Administration.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Treatment Planning Strategies for Interstitial Ultrasound Ablation of Prostate Cancer.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of the literature on existing computational models for radiofrequency and microwave thermal liver ablation planning and compare their accuracy.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. Characteristics of the computational model and validation method of the included articles were retrieved.
resultsThe literature search identified 780 articles, of which 35 were included. A total of 19 articles focused on simulating radiofrequency ablation (RFA) zones, and 16 focused on microwave ablation (MWA) zones. Out of the 16 articles simulating MWA, only 2 used in vivo experiments to validate their simulations. Out of the 19 articles simulating RFA, 10 articles used in vivo validation. Dice similarity coefficients describing the overlap between in vivo experiments and simulated RFA zones varied between 0.418 and 0.728, with mean surface deviations varying between 1.1 mm and 8.67 mm.
conclusionComputational models to simulate ablation zones of MWA and RFA show considerable heterogeneity in model type and validation methods. It is currently unknown which model is most accurate and best suitable for use in clinical practice.
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.