ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Expanded methods for geometric location of 2D bone histology co-registration in 3D radiology volumes.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone sarcoma treatment employs wide surgical margins to ensure complete tumour excision, sometimes at the expense of patient quality of life. As precision technologies advance, quantitative data to inform the planned accuracy of surgical margins is increasingly important. This study assesses two novel computational methods (M2, M3) to support the co-registration of 2D histologic images within 3D radiological volumes. Replicated evaluation of an established method (M1) is also performed with new data. M2 suits concave bisected sections by assuming a different orientation during tissue bandsaw than M1. M3 handles freeform geometries by using a third measurement to constrain 2D histology images within 3D space without need for geometric bandsaw assumptions. Three computed distances across 38 canine specimen dissections from each method were compared with three corresponding physical measurements collected during laboratory processing. M1 produced a mean error of 0.12 (± 1.7) mm, M2 produced a mean error of 0.06 (± 1.9) mm, while M3 produced a mean error of 0.02 (± 1.5) mm. Mean errors for each method were of similar magnitude to 3D registration error reported in histology co-registration frameworks for other tissues. This study supports a simple low cost opportunity for use of digital histology images to support bone sarcoma radiology interpretation and treatment planning.
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.