ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Clinical validation of an automatic atlas-based segmentation tool for male pelvis CT images.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deep learning methods for enhancing cone-beam CT image quality toward adaptive radiation therapy: A systematic review.Medical physics · 2022Pooled it
- Do AI-based contouring algorithms influence physicians in the online adaptive radiotherapy of patients with bladder cancer?Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Inter-observer variability in radiotherapy contouring with the use of autocontouring software: A systematic review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Geometric and dosimetric evaluation of a commercial AI auto-contouring tool on multiple anatomical sites in CT scans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of the convolutional neural network‑based automatic delineation tool in determining the clinical target volume and organs at risk in rectal cancer radiotherapy.Oncology letters · 2024Article
- Geometric and dosimetric evaluation for breast and regional nodal auto-segmentation structures.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Multicenter Study of Pelvic Nodal Autosegmentation Algorithm of Siemens Healthineers: Comparison of Male Versus Female Pelvis.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical validation of an automatic atlas-based segmentation tool for male pelvis CT images.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Auto-segmentation for total marrow irradiation.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- The clinical evaluation of atlas-based auto-segmentation for automatic contouring during cervical cancer radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- A Preliminary Study on the Auto-Segmentation of Targets and Organs at Risk in Pediatric Total Marrow and Lymphoid Irradiation.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective work aims to evaluate the possible impact on intra- and inter-observer variability, contouring time, and contour accuracy of introducing a pelvis computed tomography (CT) auto-segmentation tool in radiotherapy planning workflow.
methodsTests were carried out on five structures (bladder, rectum, pelvic lymph-nodes, and femoral heads) of six previously treated subjects, enrolling five radiation oncologists (ROs) to manually re-contour and edit auto-contours generated with a male pelvis CT atlas created with the commercial software MIM MAESTRO. The ROs first delineated manual contours (M). Then they modified the auto-contours, producing automatic-modified (AM) contours. The procedure was repeated to evaluate intra-observer variability, producing M1, M2, AM1, and AM2 contour sets (each comprising 5 structures × 6 test patients × 5 ROs = 150 contours), for a total of 600 contours. Potential time savings was evaluated by comparing contouring and editing times. Structure contours were compared to a reference standard by means of Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA), to assess intra- and inter-observer variability. To exclude any automation bias, ROs evaluated both M and AM sets as "clinically acceptable" or "to be corrected" in a blind test.
resultsComparing AM to M sets, a significant reduction of both inter-observer variability (p < 0.001) and contouring time (-45% whole pelvis, p < 0.001) was obtained. Intra-observer variability reduction was significant only for bladder and femoral heads (p < 0.001). The statistical test showed no significant bias.
conclusionOur atlas-based workflow proved to be effective for clinical practice as it can improve contour reproducibility and generate time savings. Based on these findings, institutions are encouraged to implement their auto-segmentation method.
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.