ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Personalization of liver microwave ablation simulation.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMicrowave ablation (MWA) is a locoregional, thermal destruction treatment approach for liver tumors. However, accurately predicting tissue necrosis remains challenging, primarily due to limitations in blood flow advection modeling, which is commonly approximated as volumetric perfusion, lacking personalization and clinical validation. This study evaluates the influence of perfusion modeling on MWA prediction accuracy in an in vivo study and proposes a patient-specific personalization framework yielding improved performance.
methodsIn vivo ablations were performed on porcine livers at sites with varying proximity to large vessels. Ablation zones were segmented from post-treatment CT scans for evaluating finite element simulations based on the Pennes bioheat equation. A two-compartment tissue vessel model was implemented, with proposed perfusion coefficients from in vivo calibration and a vessel radius model. The ablation extent and morphology were compared for the proposed approach and established perfusion values in the literature.
resultsThe optimal liver perfusion coefficient varied markedly between experiments, confirming strong inter-subject variability. Personalizing the perfusion term improved Dice similarity by up to 55% and reduced Hausdorff distance by over 70% relative to literature values. Incorporating radius-dependent vessel perfusion produced further local improvements near major vessels, whereas variations in thermal and electrical properties yielded limited effects.
conclusionPersonalized modeling of blood perfusion is essential for accurate MWA outcome prediction. The proposed framework shows that perfusion dominates uncertainty in thermal simulations and provides a pathway toward patient-specific digital twins for liver ablation planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42171652What 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.