ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2020
Deep learning vs. atlas-based models for fast auto-segmentation of the masticatory muscles on head and neck CT images.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Atlas and Neural Network Autosegmentation Methods for Pediatric Craniospinal Irradiation With the Development of a Knowledge-Based Quality Assurance Tool.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Auto-Segmentation and Auto-Planning in Automated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of AI-based auto-contouring tools in radiotherapy: A single-institution study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Using Deep Learning to Perform Automatic Quantitative Measurement of Masseter and Tongue Muscles in Persons With Dementia: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Deep learning for autosegmentation for radiotherapy treatment planning: State-of-the-art and novel perspectives.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025Review
- Geometric and dosimetric evaluation for breast and regional nodal auto-segmentation structures.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- The InterVision Framework: An Enhanced Fine-Tuning Deep Learning Strategy for Auto-Segmentation in Head and Neck.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Investigation on performance of multiple AI-based auto-contouring systems in organs at risks (OARs) delineation.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Localized fine-tuning and clinical evaluation of deep-learning based auto-segmentation (DLAS) model for clinical target volume (CTV) and organs-at-risk (OAR) in rectal cancer radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- RadDeploy: A framework for integrating in-house developed software and artificial intelligence models seamlessly into radiotherapy workflows.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of an Ultrasonography-Based Machine Learning Model for Predicting Outcomes of Bruxism Treatments.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of limbus artificial intelligence software to augment contouring for prostate and nodes radiotherapy.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- NRG Oncology Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Deep Learning-Based Auto-segmentation for Radiation Therapy: Current Developments, Clinical Considerations, and Future Directions.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024Article
- Fully automated deep learning based auto-contouring of liver segments and spleen on contrast-enhanced CT images.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Multicenter Study of Pelvic Nodal Autosegmentation Algorithm of Siemens Healthineers: Comparison of Male Versus Female Pelvis.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Impact of deep learning-based multiorgan segmentation methods on patient-specific internal dosimetry in PET/CT imaging: A comparative study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Investigation of autosegmentation techniques on T2-weighted MRI for off-line dose reconstruction in MR-linac workflow for head and neck cancers.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Generative Adversarial Network (Generative Artificial Intelligence) in Pediatric Radiology: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Semi-automatic muscle segmentation in MR images using deep registration-based label propagation.Pattern recognition · 2023Article
- Enhancing Radiotherapy Workflow for Head and Neck Cancer with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImpaired function of masticatory muscles will lead to trismus. Routine delineation of these muscles during planning may improve dose tracking and facilitate dose reduction resulting in decreased radiation-related trismus. This study aimed to compare a deep learning model with a commercial atlas-based model for fast auto-segmentation of the masticatory muscles on head and neck computed tomography (CT) images. MATERIAL AND
methodsPaired masseter (M), temporalis (T), medial and lateral pterygoid (MP, LP) muscles were manually segmented on 56 CT images. CT images were randomly divided into training (n = 27) and validation (n = 29) cohorts. Two methods were used for automatic delineation of masticatory muscles (MMs): Deep learning auto-segmentation (DLAS) and atlas-based auto-segmentation (ABAS). The automatic algorithms were evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), recall, precision, Hausdorff distance (HD), HD95, and mean surface distance (MSD). A consolidated score was calculated by normalizing the metrics against interobserver variability and averaging over all patients. Differences in dose (∆Dose) to MMs for DLAS and ABAS segmentations were assessed. A paired t-test was used to compare the geometric and dosimetric difference between DLAS and ABAS methods.
resultsDLAS outperformed ABAS in delineating all MMs (p < 0.05). The DLAS mean DSC for M, T, MP, and LP ranged from 0.83 ± 0.03 to 0.89 ± 0.02, the ABAS mean DSC ranged from 0.79 ± 0.05 to 0.85 ± 0.04. The mean value for recall, HD, HD95, MSD also improved with DLAS for auto-segmentation. Interobserver variation revealed the highest variability in DSC and MSD for both T and MP, and the highest scores were achieved for T by both automatic algorithms. With few exceptions, the mean ∆D98%, ∆D95%, ∆D50%, and ∆D2% for all structures were below 10% for DLAS and ABAS and had no detectable statistical difference (P > 0.05). DLAS based contours had dose endpoints more closely matched with that of the manually segmented when compared with ABAS.
conclusionsDLAS auto-segmentation of masticatory muscles for the head and neck radiotherapy had improved segmentation accuracy compared with ABAS with no qualitative difference in dosimetric endpoints compared to manually segmented contours.
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.