ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
Supervised versus unsupervised GAN for pseudo-CT synthesis in brain MR-guided radiotherapy.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiotherapy is a crucial treatment for brain tumor malignancies. To address the limitations of CT-based treatment planning, recent research has explored MR-only radiotherapy, requiring precise MR-to-CT synthesis. This study compares two deep learning approaches, supervised (Pix2Pix) and unsupervised (CycleGAN), for generating pseudo-CT (pCT) images from T1- and T2-weighted MR sequences. 3270 paired T1- and T2-weighted MRI images were collected and registered with corresponding CT images. After preprocessing, a supervised pCT generative model was trained using the Pix2Pix framework, and an unsupervised generative network (CycleGAN) was also trained to enable a comparative assessment of pCT quality relative to the Pix2Pix model. To assess differences between pCT and reference CT images, three key metrics (SSIM, PSNR, and MAE) were used. Additionally, a dosimetric evaluation was performed on selected cases to assess clinical relevance. The average SSIM, PSNR, and MAE for Pix2Pix on T1 images were 0.964 ± 0.03, 32.812 ± 5.21, and 79.681 ± 9.52 HU, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed that Pix2Pix significantly outperformed CycleGAN in generating high-fidelity pCT images (p < 0.05). There was no notable difference in the effectiveness of T1-weighted versus T2-weighted MR images for generating pCT (p > 0.05). Dosimetric evaluation confirmed comparable dose distributions between pCT and reference CT, supporting clinical feasibility. Both supervised and unsupervised methods demonstrated the capability to generate accurate pCT images from conventional T1- and T2-weighted MR sequences. While supervised methods like Pix2Pix achieve higher accuracy, unsupervised approaches such as CycleGAN offer greater flexibility by eliminating the need for paired training data, making them suitable for applications where paired data is unavailable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40694229What 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.