ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
BioDeformUNet: A Deep Learning Model for Biomechanically Informed Liver Image Registration.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To build a 3D U-Net model, BioDeformUNet, to predict the liver's deformation vector field (DVF) in near real-time, for efficient intra-procedural evaluation of the minimal ablative margin (MAM). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 170 contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) image pairs from 157 patients who underwent liver ablation treatment between 2020-2024. Each data instance included one pre-ablation CECT (pre-CECT) and one post-ablation CECT (post-CECT). BioDeformUNet was trained under the guidance of DVFs generated by a biomechanical model-based deformable image registration (DIR) algorithm using a loss function that focused on large liver deformations. Data were split patient-wise into training (92-93 patients), validation (23-24 patients), and testing sets (42 patients). We compared our method's performance with two deep learning-based DIR methods: VoxelMorph and VFA. Evaluation metrics included: target registration error (TRE), Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Minimum Ablation Margin (MAM), and inference time. For BioDeformUNet, we additionally evaluated the accuracy of the deformed tumor center-of-mass mapping by comparing the predicted tumor center location with that generated by Morfeus. A mapping error less than 3.0 mm (corresponding to the voxel size) was considered accurate. We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to assess the significancy of each test result. Our code is available at https://github.com/XinyueZhang831/BioDeformUNET. Results: The TRE of BioDeformUNet was not significantly different from Morfeus (3.31±1.17 BioDeformUNet; 3.23±1.06 Morfeus; p-value=0.41). The BioDeformUNet DVF magnitude was within 3.0 mm of Morfeus DVF for an average of 91.9 ± 17.6% (mean ± SD) of the voxels. Tumor mapping errors greater than 3.0 mm occurred in only 8 cases. The inference time of BioDeformUNet was 0.6s per image pair, 0.2s for VoxelMorph, 0.3s for VFA, and 20.2s for Morfeus. Conclusion: BioDeformUNet achieved a similar performance to the biomechanical model-based algorithm but required fewer computational operations, resulting in a 34× speedup in DVF computation.
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.