Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26553109›Full record

ArticleJournal of digital imaging2016

User Interaction in Semi-Automatic Segmentation of Organs at Risk: a Case Study in Radiotherapy.

Anjana Ramkumar, Jose Dolz, Hortense A Kirisli, Sonja Adebahr, Tanja Schimek-Jasch, Ursula Nestle, Laurent Massoptier, Edit Varga, Pieter Jan Stappers, Wiro J Niessen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A porosity model for medical image segmentation of vessels.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Automatic Intracranial Segmentation: Is the Clinician Still Needed?Technology in cancer research & treatment · 2018
    Article
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

11 authors.

Anjana RamkumarFaculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628CE, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jose DolzAquilab, Loos-les-Lille, Lille, France.
Hortense A KirisliAquilab, Loos-les-Lille, Lille, France.
Sonja AdebahrDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Tanja Schimek-JaschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Ursula NestleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Laurent MassoptierAquilab, Loos-les-Lille, Lille, France.
Edit VargaDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter Jan StappersFaculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628CE, Delft, The Netherlands.
Wiro J NiessenDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Yu SongFaculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628CE, Delft, The Netherlands. Y.Song@tudelft.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate segmentation of organs at risk is an important step in radiotherapy planning. Manual segmentation being a tedious procedure and prone to inter- and intra-observer variability, there is a growing interest in automated segmentation methods. However, automatic methods frequently fail to provide satisfactory result, and post-processing corrections are often needed. Semi-automatic segmentation methods are designed to overcome these problems by combining physicians' expertise and computers' potential. This study evaluates two semi-automatic segmentation methods with different types of user interactions, named the "strokes" and the "contour", to provide insights into the role and impact of human-computer interaction. Two physicians participated in the experiment. In total, 42 case studies were carried out on five different types of organs at risk. For each case study, both the human-computer interaction process and quality of the segmentation results were measured subjectively and objectively. Furthermore, different measures of the process and the results were correlated. A total of 36 quantifiable and ten non-quantifiable correlations were identified for each type of interaction. Among those pairs of measures, 20 of the contour method and 22 of the strokes method were strongly or moderately correlated, either directly or inversely. Based on those correlated measures, it is concluded that: (1) in the design of semi-automatic segmentation methods, user interactions need to be less cognitively challenging; (2) based on the observed workflows and preferences of physicians, there is a need for flexibility in the interface design; (3) the correlated measures provide insights that can be used in improving user interaction design.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalPattern Recognition, AutomatedRadiotherapyAlgorithmsHumansObserver VariationOrgans at RiskReproducibility of ResultsCorrelationsEvaluationHuman-computer interactionOrgans at riskRadiotherapySemi-automatic segmentation

Identifiers

PMID26553109
PMCPMC4788616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.