ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Comprehensive clinical evaluation of novel 4DCT-based lung function imaging methods.
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 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.
- Estimating pediatric lung volumetric parameters via rapid, limited-slice, free-breathing thoracic dynamic MRI.Medical physics · 2026Article
- A Spatiotemporal Transformer Framework on 4D-CT for Early Prediction of Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Comprehensive clinical evaluation of novel 4DCT-based lung function imaging methods.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMethods have been developed that apply image processing to 4DCTs to generate 4DCT-ventilation/perfusion lung imaging. Traditional methods for 4DCT-ventilation rely on Hounsfield-Unit (HU) density-change methods and suffer from poor numerical robustness while not providing 4DCT-perfusion data. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the clinical differences between classic HU-based 4DCT-ventilation approaches and novel 4DCT-ventilation/perfusion approaches.
methodsData from 63 lung cancer patients enrolled in a functional avoidance clinical trial were analyzed. 4DCT-data were used to generate four lung-function images: (1) classical HU-based 4DCT-ventilation ("4DCT-vent-HU"), and three novel, statistically robust methods: (2) 4DCT-ventilation based on the Mass Conserving Volume Change ("4DCT-vent-MCVC"), (3) 4DCT-ventilation using the Integrated Jacobian Formulation, and (4) 4DCT-perfusion. A radiologist reviewed all images for ventilation/perfusion defects (scored as yes/no) and the scores for the novel approaches were compared to those of 4DCT-vent-HU using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Functional contours were generated using thresholding methods, and the contours from the three novel 4DCT-ventilation methods were compared against that from 4DCT-vent-HU (Dice similarity coefficients [DSC]). Functional mean lung dose (fMLD) and dose-function metrics were compared against dose-function metrics using 4DCT-vent-HU.
resultsROC analysis revealed accuracy in the range of 0.55 to 0.73 comparing radiologist interpretations of 4DCT-vent-HU against the three novel approaches. Average DSC values were 0.41 ± 0.19, 0.44 ± 0.16, and 0.42 ± 0.17 comparing 4DCT-vent-HU to 4DCT-vent-IJF, 4DCT-vent-MCVC, and 4DCT-perf, respectively. All novel imaging methods showed significant differences (p < 0.01) in dose-function metrics compared to those of 4DCT-vent-HU. 4DCT-vent-MCVC and 4DCT-Perf depicted the smallest and largest differences from 4DCT-vent-HU in fMLD (3.51 ± 3.20 Gy and 5.90 ± 5.29 Gy, respectively).
conclusionThis is the first work to comprehensively compare novel 4DCT-ventilation/perfusion methods against classical formulations. Our data show that significant differences between the 4DCT-based functional imaging methods exist, suggesting that studies are needed to evaluate which methods provide the most robust clinical results.
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.