Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40903704›Full record

ReviewPhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025

A review of image processing and analysis of computed tomography images using deep learning methods.

Darcie Anderson, Prabhakar Ramachandran, Jamie Trapp, Andrew Fielding

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Darcie AndersonSchool of Chemistry and Physics, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia. darcie.anderson@hdr.qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7335-6903
Prabhakar RamachandranSchool of Chemistry and Physics, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jamie TrappSchool of Chemistry and Physics, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Andrew FieldingSchool of Chemistry and Physics, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of machine learning has seen extraordinary growth since the development of deep learning techniques, notably the deep artificial neural network. Deep learning methodology excels in addressing complicated problems such as image classification, object detection, and natural language processing. A key feature of these networks is the capability to extract useful patterns from vast quantities of complex data, including images. As many branches of healthcare revolves around the generation, processing, and analysis of images, these techniques have become increasingly commonplace. This is especially true for radiotherapy, which relies on the use of anatomical and functional images from a range of imaging modalities, such as Computed Tomography (CT). The aim of this review is to provide an understanding of deep learning methodologies, including neural network types and structure, as well as linking these general concepts to medical CT image processing for radiotherapy. Specifically, it focusses on the stages of enhancement and analysis, incorporating image denoising, super-resolution, generation, registration, and segmentation, supported by examples of recent literature.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansNeural Networks, ComputerArtificial neural networksComputed tomographyDeep learningRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID40903704
PMCPMC12738611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.