ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning-based autocontouring system.
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 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated planning in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy for cervical cancer: Impact analysis on patient workflows in high-volume centers.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026Article
- Fractal-driven self-supervised learning enhances early-stage lung cancer GTV segmentation: a novel transfer learning framework.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Consistency evaluation and performance optimization of deep learning-based auto-contouring for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Real-world performance evaluation of commercial autocontouring software for head and neck cancer radiotherapy.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Establishing prospective performance monitoring for real-world implementation of deep learning-based auto-segmentation in prostate cancer radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- External validation of an algorithm to detect vertebral level mislabeling and autocontouring errors.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Guidance on selecting and evaluating AI auto-segmentation systems in clinical radiotherapy: insights from a six-vendor analysis.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Investigation on performance of multiple AI-based auto-contouring systems in organs at risks (OARs) delineation.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Analyzing the Relationship between Dose and Geometric Agreement Metrics for Auto-Contouring in Head and Neck Normal Tissues.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Autosegmentation: Advantages in Delineation, Absorbed Dose-Distribution, and Logistics.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Knowledge-based quality assurance of a comprehensive set of organ at risk contours for head and neck radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Fully-automated, CT-only GTV contouring for palliative head and neck radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Automated contouring and statistical process control for plan quality in a breast clinical trial.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Addressing the Global Expertise Gap in Radiation Oncology: The Radiation Planning Assistant.JCO global oncology · 2023Review
- Automated Contouring and Planning in Radiation Therapy: What Is 'Clinically Acceptable'?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comprehensive clinical evaluation of deep learning-based auto-segmentation for radiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Validation of an automated contouring and treatment planning tool for pediatric craniospinal radiation therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Clinical implementation and validation of an automated adaptive workflow for proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical acceptability of fully automated external beam radiotherapy for cervical cancer with three different beam delivery techniques.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Automatic contouring QA method using a deep learning-based autocontouring system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the most accurate similarity metric when using an independent system to verify automatically generated contours.
methodsA reference autocontouring system (primary system to create clinical contours) and a verification autocontouring system (secondary system to test the primary contours) were used to generate a pair of 6 female pelvic structures (UteroCervix [uterus + cervix], CTVn [nodal clinical target volume (CTV)], PAN [para-aortic lymph nodes], bladder, rectum, and kidneys) on 49 CT scans from our institution and 38 from other institutions. Additionally, clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours were manually generated using the 49 internal CT scans. Eleven similarity metrics (volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance, 95% Hausdorff distance, mean surface distance, and surface DSC with tolerances from 1 to 10 mm) were calculated between the reference and the verification autocontours, and between the manually generated and the verification autocontours. A support vector machine (SVM) was used to determine the threshold that separates clinically acceptable and unacceptable contours for each structure. The 11 metrics were investigated individually and in certain combinations. Linear, radial basis function, sigmoid, and polynomial kernels were tested using the combinations of metrics as inputs for the SVM.
resultsThe highest contouring error detection accuracies were 0.91 for the UteroCervix, 0.90 for the CTVn, 0.89 for the PAN, 0.92 for the bladder, 0.95 for the rectum, and 0.97 for the kidneys and were achieved using surface DSCs with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm. The linear kernel was the most accurate and consistent when a combination of metrics was used as an input for the SVM. However, the best model accuracy from the combinations of metrics was not better than the best model accuracy from a surface DSC as an input.
conclusionsWe distinguished clinically acceptable contours from clinically unacceptable contours with an accuracy higher than 0.9 for the targets and critical structures in patients with cervical cancer; the most accurate similarity metric was surface DSC with a thickness of 1, 2, or 3 mm.
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.