Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30998808›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2019

Use of Crowd Innovation to Develop an Artificial Intelligence-Based Solution for Radiation Therapy Targeting.

Raymond H Mak, Michael G Endres, Jin H Paik, Rinat A Sergeev, Hugo Aerts, Christopher L Williams, Karim R Lakhani, Eva C Guinan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Systematic review of artificial intelligence in brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Novel tools for early diagnosis and precision treatment based on artificial intelligence.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023
    Review
  13. Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Raymond H MakDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael G EndresLaboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jin H PaikLaboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rinat A SergeevLaboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Hugo AertsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Christopher L WilliamsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Karim R LakhaniLaboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eva C GuinanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceRadiation therapy (RT) is a critical cancer treatment, but the existing radiation oncologist work force does not meet growing global demand. One key physician task in RT planning involves tumor segmentation for targeting, which requires substantial training and is subject to significant interobserver variation.

objectiveTo determine whether crowd innovation could be used to rapidly produce artificial intelligence (AI) solutions that replicate the accuracy of an expert radiation oncologist in segmenting lung tumors for RT targeting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe conducted a 10-week, prize-based, online, 3-phase challenge (prizes totaled $55 000). A well-curated data set, including computed tomographic (CT) scans and lung tumor segmentations generated by an expert for clinical care, was used for the contest (CT scans from 461 patients; median 157 images per scan; 77 942 images in total; 8144 images with tumor present). Contestants were provided a training set of 229 CT scans with accompanying expert contours to develop their algorithms and given feedback on their performance throughout the contest, including from the expert clinician. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The AI algorithms generated by contestants were automatically scored on an independent data set that was withheld from contestants, and performance ranked using quantitative metrics that evaluated overlap of each algorithm's automated segmentations with the expert's segmentations. Performance was further benchmarked against human expert interobserver and intraobserver variation.

resultsA total of 564 contestants from 62 countries registered for this challenge, and 34 (6%) submitted algorithms. The automated segmentations produced by the top 5 AI algorithms, when combined using an ensemble model, had an accuracy (Dice coefficient = 0.79) that was within the benchmark of mean interobserver variation measured between 6 human experts. For phase 1, the top 7 algorithms had average custom segmentation scores (S scores) on the holdout data set ranging from 0.15 to 0.38, and suboptimal performance using relative measures of error. The average S scores for phase 2 increased to 0.53 to 0.57, with a similar improvement in other performance metrics. In phase 3, performance of the top algorithm increased by an additional 9%. Combining the top 5 algorithms from phase 2 and phase 3 using an ensemble model, yielded an additional 9% to 12% improvement in performance with a final S score reaching 0.68. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A combined crowd innovation and AI approach rapidly produced automated algorithms that replicated the skills of a highly trained physician for a critical task in radiation therapy. These AI algorithms could improve cancer care globally by transferring the skills of expert clinicians to under-resourced health care settings.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCrowdsourcingInventionsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedTumor Burden

Identifiers

PMID30998808
PMCPMC6512265

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.