ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2026
Evaluation of operator variability and technical accuracy of automatic image-based registration in liver fusion imaging.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the technical feasibility and performance of automatic image-based registration (IBR) for liver fusion imaging and to identify clinical and anatomical factors affecting registration success. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study included 84 patients undergoing liver fusion imaging using an ultrasound system with IBR. Three operators with 5, 10, and 25 years of experience (junior, intermediate, and senior), respectively, independently performed IBR. Fusion time and registration error were recorded. Fusion success was defined both globally (success by all or at least one operator) and individually (registration error < 10 mm). Clinical and anatomical factors were assessed. Predictors of failure were identified using multivariable logistic regression with Firth's correction.
resultsIBR was successful in all three operators in 86.9% of cases and by at least one operator in 96.4%. The most experienced operator achieved significantly shorter fusion times (median: 15.0 s) and smaller fusion errors (median: 6.0 mm) compared to the less experienced operators. Operator-specific success rates defined as registration error < 10 mm were 45.2%, 60.7%, and 79.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Subcutaneous tissue depth was the only independent predictor of fusion failure in both multivariable models (OR = 1.13 for all failed, p = 0.033; OR = 0.88 for partial success, p = 0.012). Other clinical factors were not statistically significant.
conclusionIBR is a highly feasible method that reduces operator dependency in liver fusion imaging compared to conventional methods, though registration accuracy still varies with operator experience. CLINICAL IMPACT: IBR enables consistent and simplified fusion imaging regardless of operator experience. Its broad applicability may support safer and more efficient ultrasound-guided interventions, especially in resource-limited or time-sensitive settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41014474What 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.