ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Intelligent automatic registration: is it feasible and efficient for application of ultrasound fusion imaging in liver?
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taiwan Academy of Tumor Ablation (TATA) consensus on hepatocellular carcinoma ablation.Hepatology international · 2026Article
- Evaluation of operator variability and technical accuracy of automatic image-based registration in liver fusion imaging.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the feasibility and efficiency between the two intelligent auto-registrations (based on hepatic vessels or based on liver surface) and manual registration for US-CT/MR fusion imaging of liver tumours.
methodsFrom May 2017 to December 2017, 30 patients with 30 liver tumours were enrolled in this prospectively study. Two intelligent auto-registrations (based on hepatic vessels or based on liver surface) and manual registration were randomly performed, the registration success rate and efficiency were compared.
resultsIn terms of success rate, auto-registrations based on the hepatic vessels (80%) was lower than auto-registration base on liver surface and manual registration (96.67%), but with no statistical difference (P = 0.125). In comparison of the registration efficiency, the efficiency of the auto-registration based on the hepatic vessels was superior to auto-registration based on liver surface and manual registration (P < 0.05). The one-step success rate of auto-registration based on the hepatic vessels (53.33%, 16/30) was higher than that of other two registrations (P < 0.05). Stratified analysis showed that, for the lesion with display of hepatic vessels in grade 3, the success rate of auto-registration based on vessels (0%) was lower than that of auto-registration based on liver surface and manual registration (100%) (P = 0.031).
conclusionIntelligent auto-registration based on hepatic vessels is a feasible and efficient registration method for US-CT/MR fusion imaging of liver tumours for the patients with clear hepatic vessels. The auto-registration based on liver surface and manual registration can be an effective supplement for cases with poor hepatic vessels display.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39613872What 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.