ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Brain MR-only workflow in clinical practice: A comparison among generators for quality assurance and patient positioning.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Comprehensive evaluation of a deep learning-based synthetic CT model for MR-only radiotherapy across multiple anatomical sites.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Dental metal artifacts in magnetic resonance-based synthetic computed tomography for brain radiotherapy: Impact on dose, patient setup, and geometric distortion.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical validation of using a commercial synthetic-computed tomography solution for brain MRI-only radiotherapy treatment planning.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Brain MR-only workflow in clinical practice: A comparison among generators for quality assurance and patient positioning.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRoutine quality control procedures are still required for sCT based on artificial intelligence (AI) to verify the performance of the generators. The aim of this study was to evaluate three generators based on AI or bulk density (BD) assignment for the patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) of another AI-based generator in clinical routine. A patient positioning study based on 2D/2D kV-image comparing the performances of four sCT generators was also performed. MATERIALS AND
methodsOn the four generators available commercially at our institution, one was chosen as the clinical one, and the three others were used for PSQA. Several dose metrics were calculated like the mean error, dose-volume histogram metrics, and 1%/1 mm gamma analysis. A comparison against CT was considered as a reference. Translations and rotations found during patient positioning based on sCT were compared to those based on CT.
resultsSome of the metrics calculated against CT revealed patients outside the tolerances chosen (1% for point metrics; 90% for gamma pass rate). None of the generators was able to identify these outliers for all metrics studied. Performing a PSQA with other sCT generators introduced several false positives and false negatives. None of the generators was able to clearly identify, for all metrics studied, a true sCT failure caused by a metal implant. The smallest positioning deviations were found for the BD assignment sCT, the largest for the only AI generator not based on a T1 Dixon MR sequence.
conclusionsPSQA of a sCT generator with another sCT generator should be performed with great care. Patient positioning is an important aspect to consider when evaluating a sCT generator. The results of this study should help medical physicists willing to set up a MR-only workflow for the brain based on a 2D/2D kV-image patient positioning.
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.