Advances in computational human phantoms and their applications in biomedical engineering—a topical review
Open accessAbstract
Over the past decades, significant improvements have been made in the field of computational human phantoms (CHPs) and their applications in biomedical engineering. Their sophistication has dramatically increased. The very first CHPs were composed of simple geometric volumes, e.g., cylinders and spheres, while current CHPs have a high resolution, cover a substantial range of the patient population, have high anatomical accuracy, are poseable, morphable, and are augmented with various details to perform functionalized computations. Advances in imaging techniques and semi-automated segmentation tools allow fast and personalized development of CHPs. These advances open the door to quickly develop personalized CHPs, inherently including the disease of the patient. Because many of these CHPs are increasingly providing data for regulatory submissions of various medical devices, the validity, anatomical accuracy, and availability to cover the entire patient population is of utmost importance. The article is organized into two main sections: the first section reviews the different modeling techniques used to create CHPs, whereas the second section discusses various applications of CHPs in biomedical engineering. Each topic gives an overview, a brief history, recent developments, and an outlook into the future.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A well-established method addressing the MR safety question is computational electromagnetic modeling.
“A well-established method addressing this safety question is computational electromagnetic modeling [27,28].”
From Credibility assessment of in silico clinical trials for medical devices (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 185 · Cited by 109
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [3]Stroud I, “ Boundary representation modeling techniques”, London: Springer-Verlag, 7 2006.
- [53]ICRP, “ Reference man: Anatomical, physiological and metabolic characteristics, Pub. 23,” Ann. ICRP, vol. 4, no. 3–4, 1974.
- [126]ICNIRP, “ ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields,” Health Phys, vol. 74, pp. 494– 522, 1998. 9525427
- [127]IEEE, “ IEEE C95.1:2005 - Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3kHz to 300GHz”.
- [128]IEEE, “ IEEE Std. 1528:2013 - Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Head From Wireless Communications Devices: Measurement Techniques”.
- [143]IEC/IEEE, “ IEC/IEEE 62704–1:2017 - Determining the peak spatial-average specific absorption rate (SAR) in the human body from wireless communications devices, 30 MHz to 6 GHz,” Part 1: General requirements for using the finite difference time-domain (FDTD) method for SAR calculations.
- [144]IEC/IEEE, “ IEC/IEEE 62704–3:2017 - Determining the peak spatial-average specific absorption rate (SAR) in the human body from wireless communications devices, 30 MHz to 6 GHz,” Part 3: Specific requirements for using the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method for SAR calculations of mobile phones.
- [145]IEC, “ IEC 60601–2–33+AMD2:2015 - Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment, 3rd edition”.
- [161]Dimbylow PJ, “ The development of realistic voxel phantoms for electromagnetic field dosimetry,” in Workshop on Voxel Phantom Development, Chilton, UK, 1996.
- Authors
- Kainz, W., Neufeld, E., Bolch, W. E., Graff, C. G., Kim, C. H., Kuster, N., Lloyd, B., Morrison, T., Segars, P., Yeom, Y. S., Zankl, M., Xu, X. G., & Tsui, B. M. W.
- Affiliations
- United States Food and Drug Administration (US)
- Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (CH)
- University of Florida (US)
- Hanyang University (KR)
- Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Helmholtz Munich (DE)
- Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-23
- ISSN
- 2469-7303 (ISSN-L)
- 2469-7311
- PMC
- PMC6362464
- OpenAlex
- W2903213872
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 185
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 3.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Site cant be reached (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion)
- The Royal Society of Chemistry’s Journals, Books and Databases (The Royal Society of Chemistry) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (FD999999)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL131753)
- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB001838)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Anatomy and Medical Technology
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
- Keywords
- anatomical modeling, image segmentation, anatomical accuracy
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