ArticleJournal of digital imaging2014
Development of a software for quantitative evaluation radiotherapy target and organ-at-risk segmentation comparison.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The value of periprostatic fascia thickness and fascia preservation as prognostic factors of erectile function after nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.World journal of urology · 2019Article
- Artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: A specialty-wide disruptive transformation?Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2018Review
- A prospective in silico analysis of interdisciplinary and interobserver spatial variability in post-operative target delineation of high-risk oral cavity cancers: Does physician specialty matter?Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2018Article
- A Comparison of Lung Nodule Segmentation Algorithms: Methods and Results from a Multi-institutional Study.Journal of digital imaging · 2016Article
- Article
- Prospective assessment of an atlas-based intervention combined with real-time software feedback in contouring lymph node levels and organs-at-risk in the head and neck: Quantitative assessment of conformance to expert delineation.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern radiotherapy requires accurate region of interest (ROI) inputs for plan optimization and delivery. Target delineation, however, remains operator-dependent and potentially serves as a major source of treatment delivery error. In order to optimize this critical, yet observer-driven process, a flexible web-based platform for individual and cooperative target delineation analysis and instruction was developed in order to meet the following unmet needs: (1) an open-source/open-access platform for automated/semiautomated quantitative interobserver and intraobserver ROI analysis and comparison, (2) a real-time interface for radiation oncology trainee online self-education in ROI definition, and (3) a source for pilot data to develop and validate quality metrics for institutional and cooperative group quality assurance efforts. The resultant software, Target Contour Testing/Instructional Computer Software (TaCTICS), developed using Ruby on Rails, has since been implemented and proven flexible, feasible, and useful in several distinct analytical and research applications.
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.