Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24784366›Full record

ReviewMedical physics2014

Vision 20/20: perspectives on automated image segmentation for radiotherapy.

Gregory Sharp, Karl D Fritscher, Vladimir Pekar, Marta Peroni, Nadya Shusharina, Harini Veeraraghavan, Jinzhong Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 171 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

171 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Automatic pelvic bone segmentation for radiotherapy using diagnostic imaging workstation.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Trueness of artificial intelligence-based, manual, and global thresholding segmentation protocols for human mandibles.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

111 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gregory SharpDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
Karl D FritscherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
Vladimir PekarPhilips Healthcare, Markham, Ontario 6LC 2S3, Canada.
Marta PeroniCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, 5232 Villigen-PSI, Switzerland.
Nadya ShusharinaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
Harini VeeraraghavanDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10065.
Jinzhong YangDepartment of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.

Funding

Washington University ConsoritumU54EB005149 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI KIKINIS, RON · 2004 to 2013
$39.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB005149
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to rapid advances in radiation therapy (RT), especially image guidance and treatment adaptation, a fast and accurate segmentation of medical images is a very important part of the treatment. Manual delineation of target volumes and organs at risk is still the standard routine for most clinics, even though it is time consuming and prone to intra- and interobserver variations. Automated segmentation methods seek to reduce delineation workload and unify the organ boundary definition. In this paper, the authors review the current autosegmentation methods particularly relevant for applications in RT. The authors outline the methods' strengths and limitations and propose strategies that could lead to wider acceptance of autosegmentation in routine clinical practice. The authors conclude that currently, autosegmentation technology in RT planning is an efficient tool for the clinicians to provide them with a good starting point for review and adjustment. Modern hardware platforms including GPUs allow most of the autosegmentation tasks to be done in a range of a few minutes. In the nearest future, improvements in CT-based autosegmentation tools will be achieved through standardization of imaging and contouring protocols. In the longer term, the authors expect a wider use of multimodality approaches and better understanding of correlation of imaging with biology and pathology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingPattern Recognition, AutomatedRadiotherapy, Computer-AssistedSoftwareTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID24784366
PMCPMC4000389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.