Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42459777›Full record

ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2026

Extending Regression Without Truth to Integrate Ground-Truth Measurements for Evaluating Quantitative Imaging Methods with Patient Data.

Yan Liu, Abhinav K Jha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Yan LiuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abhinav K JhaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

Validation and dissemination of novel physical phantoms for quantitative theranostics researchR01EB031962 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2022 to 2025
$2.4M
A no-gold-standard framework to objectively evaluate quantitative imaging methods with patient dataR01EB031051 · NIBIB · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI JHA, ABHINAV K · 2021 to 2025
$2.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031051NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective evaluation of quantitative imaging (QI) methods with patient data is often hindered by the lack of gold standards. To address this challenge, a class of regression-without-truth (RWT) techniques have been developed. These techniques assume that the true and measured values are linearly related and estimate the linear-relationship parameters without access to true values. However, reliable estimation of these parameters typically requires many patient samples, which can be expensive and time consuming to obtain, and even impossible in settings such as studies with rare diseases or with new clinical imaging procedures. Thus, there is an important need for strategies to perform evaluation of quantitative imaging methods with a small number of patient samples. In this context, we note that datasets with known ground truth, such as physical phantom studies, could be available. In this manuscript, we propose an approach that integrates information from both patient data without ground truth and known-ground-truth datasets to perform objective evaluation of QI methods. We validated the proposed approach using numerical studies, which showed that the proposed approach yielded improved performance in ranking QI methods compared with RWT technique. The results demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach for evaluating QI methods when patient data are limited and motivate further validation with clinically realistic simulation studies and clinical data.

Indexed as

maximum likelihood estimationno-gold-standard evaluationquantitative imaging

Identifiers

PMID42459777
PMCPMC13372251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.