pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08812 · v1 · pith:RBIAEMITnew · submitted 2026-06-07 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Investigating the Uncertainty of Cellular Microenvironment Parameter Estimations via Diffusion MRI Cytometry

Wen Li , Yan Dai , Arely Perez Rodriguez , Todd Aguilera , Jie Deng , Xun Jia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 17:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph
keywords diffusion MRIIMPULSEDparameter estimationuncertainty analysiscell microenvironmentneural networktumor response monitoring
0
0 comments X

The pith

Diffusion MRI using IMPULSED sequences can robustly estimate cell diameter, intracellular volume fraction, and extracellular diffusion coefficient.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates which cellular microenvironment parameters can be reliably derived from diffusion MRI signals generated by the IMPULSED model. It uses Jacobian-based sensitivity analysis at a signal-to-noise ratio of 30 to identify parameters with low uncertainty and tests different mapping methods including a neural network to estimate them directly from signals. Validation in cell cultures confirms the accuracy for cell diameter. A reader would care if this enables noninvasive tracking of tumor cell properties during treatment without needing tissue samples.

Core claim

Simulations with one pulsed gradient spin echo and two oscillating gradient spin echo sequences show that cell diameter d, intracellular volume fraction Vin, and extracellular diffusion coefficient Dex exhibit relative uncertainties below 1.0 under the IMPULSED model at SNR of 30. A four-layer neural network achieves the lowest errors when mapping signals to these parameters, with mean absolute errors of 1.7 μm, 5.06%, and 0.28 μm²/ms respectively. In vitro experiments with MC38 cells yield a 6.7% error in diameter estimation, supporting the use of IMPULSED dMRI for robust parameter estimation in tumor microenvironments.

What carries the argument

Jacobian-based sensitivity analysis for parameter uncertainty quantification in the IMPULSED diffusion model, paired with principal component analysis and neural network regression for signal-to-parameter mapping.

If this is right

  • d, Vin, and Dex are robustly derivable with relative uncertainty below 1.0.
  • The four-layer neural network outperforms linear and polynomial regression for parameter estimation.
  • In vitro validation achieves 6.7% error in cell diameter estimation.
  • This provides a framework for noninvasive assessment of tumor microenvironment changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the analysis to lower SNR or in vivo conditions could reveal additional robust parameters.
  • The neural network approach might be adapted for real-time clinical mapping if trained on more diverse data.
  • Combining these estimates with other imaging modalities could improve tumor response monitoring accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The IMPULSED model accurately represents diffusion in actual cellular environments under the tested sequence parameters and noise levels.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of estimated cell diameters from IMPULSED dMRI against independent microscopy measurements in the same MC38 cell samples at matched SNR would test if the reported uncertainties hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08812 by Arely Perez Rodriguez, Jie Deng, Todd Aguilera, Wen Li, Xun Jia, Yan Dai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Workflow of model development for cell microenvironment parameters estimation. The overall workflow of the parameter estimation model is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of signal variations with respect to microenvironment pa￾rameters. Panels (a)-(c) show the signal variations with respect to d, Vin, and Dex, respectively, while keeping other parameters fixed at the values indicated in each subfigure. Panels (d) and (e) depict the signal variations with respect to Din and βex, respectively, with all other parameters fixed. The blue, orange, and green curves (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows the MAE as a function of total dimensions summed over all the dimension over the three sequences. In each subfigure, there are 72 points corresponding to the MAEs under the 72 possible combinations of reduced dimensions for the three sequences. The identified optimal combination, shown as the star, appeared as the minimal among all the data points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Microenvironment parameter estimation robustness comparison among the four models. Figures (a1)-(a3), (b1)-(b3), (c1)-(c3), and (d1)-(d3) show the results at SNR = 30, 20, 15, and 10, respectively. ∗ : p < 0.05; ∗∗ : p > 0.05. Last edited June 9, 2026 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cell diameter distribution of the MC38 cells. The two yellow lines indicate the selected cell size gates (10 µm - 19 µm), and the red line shows the average cell diameter (15.0 µm). Dash line indicate the cell diameter (16.0 µm) derived from the 4-layer neural network model. Last edited June 9, 2026 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This study aims to identify cell microenvironment parameters that can be robustly estimated from IMPULSED diffusion MRI signals and to develop a reliable mapping-based estimation framework. Diffusion MRI signals were simulated using the established IMPULSED model with one pulsed gradient spin echo sequence and two oscillating gradient spin echo sequences at different frequencies. Five cellular parameters were considered: cell diameter ($d$), intracellular diffusion coefficient ($D_{in}$), intracellular volume fraction ($V_{in}$), extracellular diffusion coefficient ($D_{ex}$), and the frequency-dependent slope of $D_{ex}$ ($\beta_{ex}$). Parameter uncertainty was quantified using Jacobian-based sensitivity analysis at an SNR of 30, representing clinically achievable conditions on a 1.5T MRI scanner. To enable direct parameter mapping, signals were logarithmically transformed, reduced in dimension using principal component analysis, and then used to estimate parameters with linear regression, fourth-order polynomial regression, and a fully connected four-layer neural network. Model validation was performed in vitro using MC38 cell lines. Uncertainty analysis identified $d$, $V_{in}$, and $D_{ex}$ as robustly derivable parameters, each with relative uncertainty below 1.0. Among the tested models, the four-layer neural network performed best, with mean absolute errors of 1.7 $\mu$m for $d$, 5.06% for $V_{in}$, and 0.28 $\mu$m$^2$/ms for $D_{ex}$. In vitro validation showed a 6.7% error in cell diameter estimation. These results demonstrate that IMPULSED dMRI can support robust estimation of key cell microenvironment parameters and provide a practical framework for noninvasive assessment of tumor microenvironment changes during radiation therapy response monitoring.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates IMPULSED dMRI signals (one PGSE + two OGSE sequences) using the forward model to estimate five cellular parameters (d, Din, Vin, Dex, beta_ex). Jacobian-based sensitivity analysis at fixed SNR=30 is used to quantify uncertainty and identify d, Vin, and Dex as robust (relative uncertainty <1). Signals are log-transformed, dimension-reduced via PCA, and mapped to parameters via linear regression, polynomial regression, and a four-layer NN; the NN yields the lowest MAEs (1.7 μm for d, 5.06% for Vin, 0.28 μm²/ms for Dex). In-vitro validation on MC38 cells reports 6.7% error for d. The central claim is that IMPULSED dMRI supports robust estimation of these key microenvironment parameters for tumor monitoring.

Significance. If the Jacobian-derived uncertainties prove representative of the actual NN estimator and the IMPULSED forward model holds under realistic cellular conditions, the work supplies a concrete, simulation-validated pipeline for extracting d, Vin, and Dex from clinically feasible 1.5 T acquisitions. The explicit comparison of three mapping architectures and the in-vitro check for d are positive features that could be extended to multi-cell-line or in-vivo settings.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Uncertainty analysis] Abstract and Methods (uncertainty analysis): the claim that d, Vin, and Dex are 'robustly derivable' with relative uncertainty below 1.0 rests exclusively on first-order Jacobian sensitivity evaluated at a single nominal parameter vector and fixed SNR=30. This local linear proxy does not incorporate (i) correlations among the five parameters, (ii) the PCA reduction step, or (iii) the nonlinear NN mapping that is ultimately used for estimation; consequently the reported uncertainties may not bound the actual mapping errors.
  2. [Validation] Validation section: experimental ground truth is provided only for cell diameter d (6.7% error in MC38 cells). No corresponding in-vitro or phantom measurements are reported for Vin or Dex, so the assertion that these two parameters are 'robustly derivable' in practice rests solely on simulation MAE values.
  3. [Methods] Methods (simulation and model assumptions): all results presuppose that the IMPULSED analytic expressions accurately describe diffusion inside and outside cells across the simulated parameter ranges and sequence timings. No test of forward-model misspecification (e.g., non-Gaussian intracellular diffusion, membrane permeability) is performed, yet this assumption is load-bearing for translating the SNR=30 Jacobian results to clinical 1.5 T data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'relative uncertainty below 1.0' without specifying whether this is the coefficient of variation or a normalized standard deviation; a brief definition or reference to the exact formula used would improve clarity.
  2. [Abstract] The ranges and sampling strategy for the five simulated parameters are not stated in the abstract or summary; adding this information would aid reproducibility assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and scope of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Uncertainty analysis] Abstract and Methods (uncertainty analysis): the claim that d, Vin, and Dex are 'robustly derivable' with relative uncertainty below 1.0 rests exclusively on first-order Jacobian sensitivity evaluated at a single nominal parameter vector and fixed SNR=30. This local linear proxy does not incorporate (i) correlations among the five parameters, (ii) the PCA reduction step, or (iii) the nonlinear NN mapping that is ultimately used for estimation; consequently the reported uncertainties may not bound the actual mapping errors.

    Authors: We agree that the Jacobian-based sensitivity analysis provides a local, first-order approximation and does not fully account for parameter correlations, the PCA dimensionality reduction, or the nonlinear nature of the neural network estimator. This analysis was intended as an initial step to screen for parameters with sufficient sensitivity under the given SNR conditions. The subsequent simulation results with the NN, showing low MAEs, offer supporting evidence for the estimability of d, Vin, and Dex. To address this, we will revise the abstract and methods sections to explicitly state that the robustness claim is based on the Jacobian sensitivity combined with simulation mapping errors, rather than a comprehensive uncertainty propagation through the full pipeline. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Validation] Validation section: experimental ground truth is provided only for cell diameter d (6.7% error in MC38 cells). No corresponding in-vitro or phantom measurements are reported for Vin or Dex, so the assertion that these two parameters are 'robustly derivable' in practice rests solely on simulation MAE values.

    Authors: We acknowledge this limitation in the experimental validation. The in-vitro experiments provided direct comparison only for cell diameter d via microscopy. For Vin and Dex, we rely on the simulation-based MAEs. We will revise the abstract, results, and discussion to clarify that only d has been validated in vitro, while Vin and Dex are supported by simulations, and highlight this as an area for future experimental validation. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods (simulation and model assumptions): all results presuppose that the IMPULSED analytic expressions accurately describe diffusion inside and outside cells across the simulated parameter ranges and sequence timings. No test of forward-model misspecification (e.g., non-Gaussian intracellular diffusion, membrane permeability) is performed, yet this assumption is load-bearing for translating the SNR=30 Jacobian results to clinical 1.5 T data.

    Authors: The IMPULSED model is a well-established framework in the diffusion MRI literature for modeling restricted diffusion in cellular microenvironments. Our study assumes its validity as per prior validations in the field. We did not conduct additional misspecification tests in this work. We will add a dedicated limitations paragraph in the discussion section to acknowledge the dependence on the forward model assumptions and to suggest that future studies could explore model robustness under conditions such as membrane permeability or non-Gaussian effects. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: uncertainty and mapping results are computed outputs, not redefinitions of inputs

full rationale

The paper simulates signals from the IMPULSED forward model, applies Jacobian sensitivity analysis directly to that model at fixed SNR=30 to compute relative uncertainties, trains regression/NN mappings on the same simulated dataset (with PCA preprocessing), and reports MAE on held-out simulations plus one in-vitro check for diameter. These quantities are derived quantities from the described procedures rather than tautological re-statements of the model equations or fitted parameters renamed as predictions. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the central claims; the derivation chain remains self-contained against the external in-vitro benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the central claim rests on the validity of the IMPULSED forward model and the appropriateness of Jacobian sensitivity as an uncertainty metric. No free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced beyond the five cellular parameters under study.

free parameters (1)
  • SNR=30
    Modeling choice representing clinical 1.5T conditions; affects all uncertainty estimates.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The IMPULSED model correctly describes the diffusion signals from cellular microenvironments with the chosen sequences.
    Invoked for all signal simulations and subsequent sensitivity analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5862 in / 1470 out tokens · 27853 ms · 2026-06-27T17:14:42.586239+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Therasse et al., New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors, Journal of the national cancer institute 92 , 205--216 (2000)

    P. Therasse et al., New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors, Journal of the national cancer institute 92 , 205--216 (2000)

    2000

  2. [2]

    R. C. Newton, S. V. Kemp, P. L. Shah, D. Elson, A. Darzi, K. Shibuya, S. Mulgrew, and G.-Z. Yang, Progress toward optical biopsy: bringing the microscope to the patient, Lung 189 , 111--119 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    J. E. Swartz, J. P. Driessen, P. M. van Kempen, R. de Bree, L. M. Janssen, F. A. Pameijer, C. H. Terhaard, M. E. Philippens, and S. Willems, Influence of tumor and microenvironment characteristics on diffusion-weighted imaging in oropharyngeal carcinoma: A pilot study, Oral oncology 77 , 9--15 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Bai et al., Study of diffusion weighted imaging derived diffusion parameters as biomarkers for the microenvironment in gliomas, Frontiers in Oncology 11 , 672265 (2021)

    Y. Bai et al., Study of diffusion weighted imaging derived diffusion parameters as biomarkers for the microenvironment in gliomas, Frontiers in Oncology 11 , 672265 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    B. F. Jordan, M. Runquist, N. Raghunand, A. Baker, R. Williams, L. Kirkpatrick, G. Powis, and R. J. Gillies, Dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion MRI show rapid and dramatic changes in tumor microenvironment in response to inhibition of HIF-1 using PX-478, Neoplasia 7 , 475--485 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    Xu et al., MRI-cytometry: mapping nonparametric cell size distributions using diffusion MRI, Magnetic resonance in medicine 85 , 748--761 (2021)

    J. Xu et al., MRI-cytometry: mapping nonparametric cell size distributions using diffusion MRI, Magnetic resonance in medicine 85 , 748--761 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    E. E. Sigmund, G. Y. Cho, S. Kim, M. Finn, M. Moccaldi, J. H. Jensen, D. K. Sodickson, J. D. Goldberg, S. Formenti, and L. Moy, Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of tumor microenvironment in locally advanced breast cancer, Magnetic resonance in medicine 65 , 1437--1447 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    T. L. Chenevert, P. E. McKeever, and B. D. Ross, Monitoring early response of experimental brain tumors to therapy using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging., Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 3 , 1457--1466 (1997)

    1997

  9. [9]

    J. Xu, M. D. Does, and J. C. Gore, Quantitative characterization of tissue microstructure with temporal diffusion spectroscopy, Journal of magnetic resonance 200 , 189--197 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    Jiang, H

    X. Jiang, H. Li, J. Xie, P. Zhao, J. C. Gore, and J. Xu, Quantification of cell size using temporal diffusion spectroscopy, Magnetic resonance in medicine 75 , 1076--1085 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    E. O. Stejskal, Use of spin echoes in a pulsed magnetic-field gradient to study anisotropic, restricted diffusion and flow, The Journal of Chemical Physics 43 , 3597--3603 (1965)

    1965

  12. [12]

    P. T. Callaghan, Principles of nuclear magnetic resonance microscopy , Clarendon press, 1993

    1993

  13. [13]

    Cory, Measurement of translational displacement probabilities by NMR: an indicator of compartmentation, Magnetic resonance in medicine 14 , 435--444 (1990)

    D. Cory, Measurement of translational displacement probabilities by NMR: an indicator of compartmentation, Magnetic resonance in medicine 14 , 435--444 (1990)

    1990

  14. [14]

    K. R. Brownstein and C. Tarr, Importance of classical diffusion in NMR studies of water in biological cells, Physical review A 19 , 2446 (1979)

    1979

  15. [15]

    J. E. Tanner and E. O. Stejskal, Restricted self-diffusion of protons in colloidal systems by the pulsed-gradient, spin-echo method, The Journal of Chemical Physics 49 , 1768--1777 (1968)

    1968

  16. [16]

    D. A. Yablonskiy, G. L. Bretthorst, and J. J. Ackerman, Statistical model for diffusion attenuated MR signal, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 50 , 664--669 (2003)

    2003

  17. [17]

    L. Zhao, A. Sukstanskii, C. Kroenke, J. Song, D. Piwnica-Worms, J. Ackerman, and J. J. Neil, Intracellular water specific MR of microbead-adherent cells: HeLa cell intracellular water diffusion, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 59 , 79--84 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    M. Iima, O. Reynaud, T. Tsurugizawa, L. Ciobanu, J.-R. Li, F. Geffroy, B. Djemai, M. Umehana, and D. Le Bihan, Characterization of glioma microcirculation and tissue features using intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging in a rat brain model, Investigative radiology 49 , 485--490 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Ichikawa, U

    S. Ichikawa, U. Motosugi, D. Hernando, H. Morisaka, N. Enomoto, M. Matsuda, and H. Onishi, Histological grading of hepatocellular carcinomas with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging: inconsistent results depending on the fitting method, Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences 17 , 168--173 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Ades-Aron, J

    B. Ades-Aron, J. Veraart, P. Kochunov, S. McGuire, P. Sherman, E. Kellner, D. S. Novikov, and E. Fieremans, Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of the diffusion parameter EStImation with Gibbs and NoisE removal pipeline, Neuroimage 183 , 532--543 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    J. M. Oeschger, K. Tabelow, and S. Mohammadi, Axisymmetric diffusion kurtosis imaging with Rician bias correction: A simulation study, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 89 , 787--799 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Iima, Perfusion-driven intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI in oncology: applications, challenges, and future trends, Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences 20 , 125--138 (2021)

    M. Iima, Perfusion-driven intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI in oncology: applications, challenges, and future trends, Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences 20 , 125--138 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Xu et al., Magnetic resonance imaging of mean cell size in human breast tumors, Magnetic resonance in medicine 83 , 2002--2014 (2020)

    J. Xu et al., Magnetic resonance imaging of mean cell size in human breast tumors, Magnetic resonance in medicine 83 , 2002--2014 (2020)

    2002

  24. [24]

    C. Shen, D. Nguyen, Z. Zhou, S. B. Jiang, B. Dong, and X. Jia, An introduction to deep learning in medical physics: advantages, potential, and challenges, Physics in Medicine & Biology 65 , 05TR01 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    W. Li et al., Multi-institutional investigation of model generalizability for virtual contrast-enhanced MRI synthesis, in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pages 765--773, Springer, 2022

    2022

  26. [26]

    Assaf, R

    Y. Assaf, R. Z. Freidlin, G. K. Rohde, and P. J. Basser, New modeling and experimental framework to characterize hindered and restricted water diffusion in brain white matter, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 52 , 965--978 (2004)

    2004

  27. [27]

    D. C. Alexander, P. L. Hubbard, M. G. Hall, E. A. Moore, M. Ptito, G. J. Parker, and T. B. Dyrby, Orientationally invariant indices of axon diameter and density from diffusion MRI, Neuroimage 52 , 1374--1389 (2010)

    2010

  28. [28]

    J. Xu, H. Li, K. D. Harkins, X. Jiang, J. Xie, H. Kang, M. D. Does, and J. C. Gore, Mapping mean axon diameter and axonal volume fraction by MRI using temporal diffusion spectroscopy, Neuroimage 103 , 10--19 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    H. Li, J. C. Gore, and J. Xu, Fast and robust measurement of microstructural dimensions using temporal diffusion spectroscopy, Journal of magnetic resonance 242 , 4--9 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    Jiang, H

    X. Jiang, H. Li, S. P. Devan, J. C. Gore, and J. Xu, MR cell size imaging with temporal diffusion spectroscopy, Magnetic resonance imaging 77 , 109--123 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    B. J. Hos et al., Identification of a neo-epitope dominating endogenous CD8 T cell responses to MC-38 colorectal cancer, Oncoimmunology 9 , 1673125 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    Panagiotaki, S

    E. Panagiotaki, S. Walker-Samuel, B. Siow, S. P. Johnson, V. Rajkumar, R. B. Pedley, M. F. Lythgoe, and D. C. Alexander, Noninvasive quantification of solid tumor microstructure using VERDICT MRI, Cancer research 74 , 1902--1912 (2014)

    1902

  33. [33]

    Klassen, P

    N. Klassen, P. Walker, C. Ross, J. Cygler, and B. Lach, Two-stage cell shrinkage and the OER for radiation-induced apoptosis of rat thymocytes, International journal of radiation biology 64 , 571--581 (1993)

    1993

  34. [34]

    Jiang, E

    X. Jiang, E. T. McKinley, J. Xie, H. Li, J. Xu, and J. C. Gore, In vivo magnetic resonance imaging of treatment-induced apoptosis, Scientific reports 9 , 9540 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Schlemmer, P

    H.-P. Schlemmer, P. Bachert, M. Henze, R. Buslei, K. Herfarth, J. Debus, and G. Van Kaick, Differentiation of radiation necrosis from tumor progression using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Neuroradiology 44 , 216--222 (2002)

    2002

  36. [36]

    S. Y. Lee, M. K. Ju, H. M. Jeon, E. K. Jeong, Y. J. Lee, C. H. Kim, H. G. Park, S. I. Han, and H. S. Kang, Regulation of tumor progression by programmed necrosis, Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity 2018 , 3537471 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    S. Zhu, Y. Wang, J. Tang, and M. Cao, Radiotherapy induced immunogenic cell death by remodeling tumor immune microenvironment, Frontiers in immunology 13 , 1074477 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    M. M. Matuszak, R. Kashani, M. Green, C. Lee, Y. Cao, D. Owen, S. Jolly, and M. Mierzwa, Functional adaptation in radiation therapy, in Seminars in radiation oncology , volume 29, pages 236--244, Elsevier, 2019

    2019

  39. [39]

    Nguyen, M.-H

    D. Nguyen, M.-H. Lin, D. Sher, W. Lu, X. Jia, and S. Jiang, Advances in automated treatment planning, in Seminars in radiation oncology , volume 32, pages 343--350, Elsevier, 2022

    2022

  40. [40]

    Li et al., Automatic treatment plan re-optimization for adaptive radiotherapy guided with the initial plan DVHs, Physics in medicine and biology 58 , 8725--8738 (2013)

    N. Li et al., Automatic treatment plan re-optimization for adaptive radiotherapy guided with the initial plan DVHs, Physics in medicine and biology 58 , 8725--8738 (2013)

    2013

  41. [41]

    Gudbjartsson and S

    H. Gudbjartsson and S. Patz, The Rician distribution of noisy MRI data, Magnetic resonance in medicine 34 , 910--914 (1995)

    1995

  42. [42]

    D. K. Sharma, M. Chatterjee, G. Kaur, and S. Vavilala, Deep learning applications for disease diagnosis, in Deep learning for medical applications with unique data , pages 31--51, Elsevier, 2022

    2022

  43. [43]

    Yinghui et al., Artificial intelligence in four-dimensional imaging for motion management in radiation therapy, Artificial Intelligence Review 58 , 103 (2025)

    W. Yinghui et al., Artificial intelligence in four-dimensional imaging for motion management in radiation therapy, Artificial Intelligence Review 58 , 103 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    W. Li et al., Evaluating Virtual Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Radiation Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis for Primary Gross Tumor Delineation, International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 120 , 1448--1457 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Karimi, C

    D. Karimi, C. Jaimes, F. Machado-Rivas, L. Vasung, S. Khan, S. K. Warfield, and A. Gholipour, Deep learning-based parameter estimation in fetal diffusion-weighted MRI, Neuroimage 243 , 118482 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    Y. Dai, X. Jia, Y.-p. Liao, and D. Jie, R-index: A robust metric for IVIM parameter estimation on clinical MRI scanners, Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 110560 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Y. Dai, X. Jia, T. Aguilera, K. Jiang, A. P. Rodriguez, I. Vanhaezebrouck, and J. Deng, Optimizing IMPULSED Acquisition Protocols for Clinical 3T Scanners Through Bayesian Experimental Design, 2026

    2026