{"classes":[{"categories":[{"measurements":[{"groupId":"OG000","spread":"2.9","value":"6.8"},{"groupId":"OG001","spread":"2.8","value":"2.2"}]}]}],"denoms":[{"counts":[{"groupId":"OG000","value":"74"},{"groupId":"OG001","value":"26"}],"units":"Participants"}],"description":"For control group, MAM was assessed by rigid co-registration with side-by-side juxtaposition to verify applicator placement and by visual landmark-based CT measurements on CT workstation (Siemens Healthineers; Forchheim, Germany). For experimental group, CT images were processed with a software-based method on a radiation treatment planning system (Raystation, RaySearch Laboratories; Stockholm, Sweden) with biomechanical deformable imaging registration coupled with AI-based autosegmentation. For experimental group, interventional radiologist (IR) was informed of ablation applicator position relative to tumor on non-contrast CT before thermal ablation energy delivery and of MAM results (including spatial location of suboptimal margins) generated by software-based assessment, with this information not disclosed to IR in control group. Software-based assessment was used to compare MAMs results between both study groups with a two-sample t-test.","dispersionType":"Standard Deviation","groups":[{"description":"Clinical impact of Morfeus software usage on patients undergoing percutaneous ablation of liver tumors","id":"OG000","title":"Experimental"},{"description":"Morfeus software was not used during percutaneous ablation of liver tumors","id":"OG001","title":"Control"}],"paramType":"MEAN","populationDescription":"The primary endpoint included all enrolled patients","reportingStatus":"POSTED","timeFrame":"Visit 2 (baseline/ablation day)","title":"Minimal Ablative Margin Assessment on Post-ablation Intraprocedural CT.","type":"PRIMARY","unitOfMeasure":"mm"}