ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2025
Analysis of intra- and inter-observer variability in 4D liver ultrasound landmark labeling.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Four-dimensional (4D) ultrasound imaging is widely used in clinics for diagnostics and therapy guidance. Accurate target tracking in 4D ultrasound is crucial for autonomous therapy guidance systems, such as radiotherapy, where precise tumor localization ensures effective treatment. Supervised deep learning approaches rely on reliable ground truth, making accurate labels essential. We investigate the reliability of expert-labeled ground truth data by evaluating intra- and inter-observer variability in landmark labeling for 4D ultrasound imaging in the liver. Approach: Eight 4D liver ultrasound sequences were labeled by eight expert observers, each labeling eight landmarks three times. Intra- and inter-observer variability was quantified, and observer survey and motion analysis were conducted to determine factors influencing labeling accuracy, such as ultrasound artifacts and motion amplitude. Results: The mean intra-observer variability ranged from Conclusions: We highlight variability in expert-labeled ground truth data for 4D ultrasound imaging and identify ultrasound artifacts as a major source of labeling inaccuracies. These findings underscore the importance of addressing observer variability and artifact-related challenges to improve the reliability of ground truth data for evaluating target tracking algorithms in 4D ultrasound applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.