ArticleJAMA oncology2019
Use of Crowd Innovation to Develop an Artificial Intelligence-Based Solution for Radiation Therapy Targeting.
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.
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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluating artificial intelligence versus human-generated contours in the thorax.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Using Generative AI to Appraise the Quality of Medical Education Research Studies: Agreement Between AI-Generated and Human MERSQI Scores.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- Systematic review of artificial intelligence in brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence-based contouring of cardiac substructures on computed tomography scans for radiation therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Deep learning for automated, motion-resolved tumor segmentation in radiotherapy.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- The clinical application of artificial intelligence in cancer precision treatment.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Artificial intelligence contouring in radiotherapy for organs-at-risk and lymph node areas.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- A deep learning-based framework (Co-ReTr) for auto-segmentation of non-small cell-lung cancer in computed tomography images.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Prospective evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for use in cancer pathways following diagnosis: a systematic review.BMJ oncology · 2024Review
- Novel tools for early diagnosis and precision treatment based on artificial intelligence.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- A clinical evaluation of the performance of five commercial artificial intelligence contouring systems for radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Machine learning did not beat logistic regression in time series prediction for severe asthma exacerbations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clinical validation of deep learning algorithms for radiotherapy targeting of non-small-cell lung cancer: an observational study.The Lancet. Digital health · 2022Observational
- Evaluation of auto-segmentation for EBRT planning structures using deep learning-based workflow on cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Robust and accurate pulmonary nodule detection with self-supervised feature learning on domain adaptation.Frontiers in radiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Clinically Applicable Segmentation of Head and Neck Anatomy for Radiotherapy: Deep Learning Algorithm Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.