ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Inverse consistency error for validating deformable image registration: an explorative study on computational phantoms.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Validation of deformable image registration (DIR) remains predominantly contourbased; this study evaluated inverse consistency error (ICE) as an automated voxelwise metric for DIR accuracy. Materials and Methods: Synthetic ground-truth DVFs were generated using geometric and head-and-neck (HN) digital phantoms undergoing controlled global and local deformations. DIR was performed with the ANACONDA algorithm in RayStation. ICE maps derived from clinical DVFs were compared with ground-truth registration error (GTRE), target registration error (TRE) from 20 anatomical landmarks, and mean distance to agreement (MDA) for 22 propagated ROIs. Results: Ground-truth DVFs showed negligible ICE values, confirming mathematical invertibility. In HN phantoms, median ICE and GTRE were 0.8 ± 0.2 mm and 1.6 ± 0.4 mm, respectively. ICE correlated strongly with GTRE (R = 0.85, p < 0.001) and moderately with TRE (R = 0.68, p < 0.001). No significant correlation was found with contourbased MDA (2.47 ± 0.18 mm). Voxel-wise analysis showed that ICE captured spatial patterns of uncertainty consistent with regions of higher GTRE, while underestimating error for global homogeneous deformations >15 mm due to DIR regularisation. Across all datasets, ICE correctly identified high-uncertainty subregions that were not detected by contour-based metrics. Conclusions: ICE enables automated voxel-wise quantification of DIR uncertainty directly from clinical DVFs. It complements traditional contour-based metrics and may support patient-specific QA and more reliable dose mapping in adaptive and re-irradiation radiotherapy workflows.
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.