ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Inter-operator agreement and temporal reproducibility of automatically and manually generated multiplanar reconstruction axial images on head CT.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automatic multiplanar reconstruction (Auto MPR) for head CT has mainly been evaluated for accuracy, though temporal reproducibility remains underassessed. We compared Auto MPR and manual MPR (Manual MPR) axial images, evaluating inter-operator agreement and temporal reproducibility separately, in 16 patients who underwent three non-contrast head CT scans within two weeks, each independently processed by seven technologists. After correcting in-plane translational offsets, spatial overlap of skull regions was quantified using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and intersection over union (IoU). Auto MPR showed significantly higher inter-operator agreement (median DSC, 0.849 vs. 0.776; p < 0.001), whereas Manual MPR showed higher temporal reproducibility (median DSC, 0.850 vs. 0.792; p = 0.018), particularly in intracranial hemorrhage. Inter-operator agreement and temporal reproducibility represent independent quality dimensions of Auto MPR. We propose a diagnosis-dependent workflow: Auto MPR for single time-point, multi-technologist evaluations, and Manual MPR-or Auto MPR with manual verification-for longitudinal follow-up requiring precise comparison.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848170What 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.