ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Precision of Ablation Margin Assessment After Liver Microwave Ablation: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Visual and Software-Assisted Methods.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMinimal ablative margins (MAM) are critical for local tumour control after microwave ablation, yet their assessment remains subjective. We evaluated whether software improves the precision of ablation margin assessment after liver MWA. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, patients undergoing CT-guided liver MWA between January 2019 and January 2025 were included. Two radiologists (with 4 and 5 years of experience in abdominal imaging) assessed MAM in two steps: first by side-by-side visual comparison of pre- and post-ablation CT using anatomical landmarks, then with dedicated software providing semi-automatic 3D co-registration and margin quantification. Each method included two reading sessions per reader, six weeks apart. Precision was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Cohen's kappa (κ) for categorical classification (< 5, 5-10, > 10 mm), and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsSixty-seven patients with 87 liver tumours were included. Visual assessment showed poor reliability, with low intrareader agreement (ICC 0.10 and 0.33) and near-random interreader agreement (κ = - 0.10; ICC - 0.05), with limits of agreement approaching 17 mm. Software-assisted assessment improved reliability, with higher intrareader ICCs (0.54 and 0.83) and improved interreader agreement (κ = 0.38; ICC = 0.54). Interreader bias decreased from - 2.84 to + 0.91 mm, and limits of agreement narrowed to - 4.10 to + 5.92 mm (p < 0.001). The median absolute interreader difference decreased from 3.0 to 1.0 mm (p < 0.001).
conclusionSoftware-assisted assessment improves reliability of MAM evaluation compared with visual methods, but interreader agreement remains only fair-to-moderate; further validation is required before routine clinical adoption.
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.