ArticleEuropean radiology2025
A machine learning-based pipeline for multi-organ/tissue patient-specific radiation dosimetry in CT.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Active bone marrow dose reconstruction in a large-scale cohort study of cancer patients treated with photon radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a machine learning-based pipeline for multi-organ/tissue personalized radiation dosimetry in CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor the study, 95 chest CT scans and 85 abdominal CT scans were collected retrospectively. For each CT scan, a personalized Monte Carlo (MC) simulation was carried out. The produced 3D dose distributions and the respective CT examinations were utilized for the development of organ/tissue-specific dose prediction deep neural networks (DNNs). A pipeline that integrates a robust open-source organ segmentation tool with the dose prediction DNNs was developed for the automatic estimation of radiation doses for 30 organs/tissues including sub-volumes of the heart and lungs. The accuracy and time efficiency of the presented methodology was assessed. Statistical analysis (t-tests) was conducted to determine if the differences between the ground truth organ/tissue radiation dose estimates and the respective dose predictions were significant.
resultsThe lowest median percentage differences between MC-derived organ/tissue doses and DNN dose predictions were observed for the lung vessels (4.3%), small bowel (4.7%), pulmonary artery (4.7%), and colon (5.2%), while the highest differences were observed for the right lung's upper lobe (13.3%), spleen (13.1%), pancreas (12.1%), and stomach (11.6%). Statistical analysis showed that the differences were not significant (p-value > 0.18). Furthermore, the mean inference time, regarding the validation cohort, of the developed methodology was 77.0 ± 11.0 s.
conclusionThe proposed workflow enables fast and accurate organ/tissue radiation dose estimations. The developed algorithms and dose prediction DNNs are publicly available ( https://github.com/eltzanis/multi-structure-CT-dosimetry ). CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The accuracy and time efficiency of the developed pipeline compose a useful tool for personalized dosimetry in CT. By adopting the proposed workflow, institutions can utilize an automated pipeline for patient-specific dosimetry in CT. KEY POINTS: Personalized dosimetry is ideal, but is time-consuming. The proposed pipeline composes a tool for facilitating patient-specific CT dosimetry in routine clinical practice. The developed workflow integrates a robust open-source segmentation tool with organ/tissue-specific dose prediction neural networks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39136706What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.