Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Generating synthesized computed tomography (CT) from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using CycleGAN for adaptive radiation therapy

Open access
Liang, Xiao, Chen, Liyuan, Nguyen, Dan, Zhou, Zhiguo, Gu, Xuejun, Yang, Ming, Wang, Jing, Jiang, Steve·2019·Physics in Medicine & Biology

Abstract

Throughout the course of delivering a radiation therapy treatment, which may take several weeks, a patient’s anatomy may change drastically, and adaptive radiation therapy (ART) may be needed. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), which is often available during the treatment process, can be used for both patient positioning and ART re-planning. However, due to the prominent amount of noise, artifacts, and inaccurate Hounsfield unit (HU) values, the dose calculation based on CBCT images could be inaccurate for treatment planning. One way to solve this problem is to convert CBCT images to more accurate synthesized CT (sCT) images. In this work, we have developed a cycle-consistent generative adversarial network framework (CycleGAN) to synthesize CT images from CBCT images. This model is capable of image-to-image translation using unpaired CT and CBCT images in an unsupervised learning setting. The sCT images generated from CBCT through this CycleGAN model are visually and quantitatively similar to real CT images with decreased mean absolute error (MAE) from 69.29 HU to 29.85 HU for head-and-neck (H&N) cancer patients. The dose distributions calculated on the sCT by CycleGAN demonstrated a higher accuracy than those on CBCT in a 3D gamma index analysis with increased gamma index pass rate from 86.92% to 96.26% under 1 mm/1% criteria, when using the deformed planning CT image (dpCT) as the reference. We also compared the CycleGAN model with other unsupervised learning methods, including deep convolutional generative adversarial networks (DCGAN) and progressive growing of GANs (PGGAN), and demonstrated that CycleGAN outperformed the other two models. A phantom study has been conducted to compare sCT with dpCT, and the increase of structural similarity index from 0.91 to 0.93 shows that CycleGAN performed better than DIR in terms of preserving anatomical accuracy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1361-6560/ab22f9

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Liang, X., Chen, L., Nguyen, D., Zhou, Z., Gu, X., Yang, M., Wang, J., & Jiang, S.
Venue
Physics in Medicine & Biology
Published
2019-06-01
Volume
64
Issue
12
Pages
125002
ISSN
  • 0031-9155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6560
OpenAlex
W2898727287
Cited by
262
References
4
FWCI
23.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Generating synthesized computed tomography (CT) from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using CycleGAN for adaptive radiation therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/1361-6560/ab22f9
The paper
Liang, X., Chen, L., Nguyen, D., Zhou, Z., Gu, X., Yang, M., Wang, J., & Jiang, S. (2019). Generating synthesized computed tomography (CT) from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using CycleGAN for adaptive radiation therapy. Physics in Medicine & Biology. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab22f9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.