ArticleMedical physics2010
The influence of initial outlines on manual segmentation.
Article in Medical physics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Convolutional Neural Networks for Segmentation of Pleural Mesothelioma: Analysis of Probability Map Thresholds (CALGB 30901, Alliance).Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Advanced Image Analysis Methods for Automated Segmentation of Subnuclear Chromatin Domains.Epigenomes · 2022Article
- Variability of tumor area measurements for response assessment in malignant pleural mesothelioma.Medical physics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeInitial outlines are often presented as an aid to reduce the time-cost associated with manual segmentation and measurement of structures in medical images. This study evaluated the influence of initial outlines on manual segmentation intraobserver and interobserver precision.
methodsThree observers independently outlined all pleural mesothelioma tumors present in five computed tomography (CT) sections in each of 30 patient scans. After a lapse of time, each observer was presented with the same series of CT sections with the outlines of each observer superimposed as initial outlines. Each observer created altered outlines by altering the initial outlines to reflect their perception of the tumor boundary. Altered outlines were compared to original outlines using the Jaccard similarity coefficient (J). Intraobserver and interobserver precision of observer outlines were calculated by applying linear mixed effects analysis of variance models to the J values. The percent of minor alterations (alterations that resulted in only slight changes in the initial outline) was also recorded.
resultsThe average J value between pairs of observer original outlines was 0.371. The average J value between pairs of observer outlines when altered from an identical initial outline was 0.796, indicating increased interobserver precision. The average difference between J values of an observer's segmentation created by altering their own initial outline and when altering a different observer's initial outline was 0.476, indicating initial outlines strongly influence intraobserver precision. Observers made minor alterations on 74.5% of initial outlines with which they were presented.
conclusionsIntraobserver and interobserver precision were strongly dependent on the initial outline. These effects are likely due to the tendency of observers to make only minor corrections to initial outlines. This finding could impact observer study design, tumor growth assessment, computer-aided diagnosis system validation, and radiation therapy target volume definition when initial outlines are used as an observer aid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.