Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35765038›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2022

Pelvic U-Net: multi-label semantic segmentation of pelvic organs at risk for radiation therapy anal cancer patients using a deeply supervised shuffle attention convolutional neural network.

Michael Lempart, Martin P Nilsson, Jonas Scherman, Christian Jamtheim Gustafsson, Mikael Nilsson, Sara Alkner, Jens Engleson, Gabriel Adrian, Per Munck Af Rosenschöld, Lars E Olsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Modality-AGnostic image Cascade (MAGIC) for multi-modality cardiac substructure segmentation.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael LempartRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. michael.lempart@med.lu.se.
Martin P NilssonDepartment of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Jonas SchermanRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Christian Jamtheim GustafssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Mikael NilssonCentre for Mathematical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Sara AlknerDepartment of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Jens EnglesonDepartment of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Gabriel AdrianDepartment of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Per Munck Af RosenschöldRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Lars E OlssonRadiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Lund University · SESkåne University Hospital · SE

Funding

Analytic Imaging Diagnostics Arena 2017-02447
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelineation of organs at risk (OAR) for anal cancer radiation therapy treatment planning is a manual and time-consuming process. Deep learning-based methods can accelerate and partially automate this task. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a deep learning model for automated and improved segmentations of OAR in the pelvic region.

methodsA 3D, deeply supervised U-Net architecture with shuffle attention, referred to as Pelvic U-Net, was trained on 143 computed tomography (CT) volumes, to segment OAR in the pelvic region, such as total bone marrow, rectum, bladder, and bowel structures. Model predictions were evaluated on an independent test dataset (n = 15) using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), the 95th percentile of the Hausdorff distance (HD

resultsWithout any manual corrections, mean DSC values of 97%, 87% and 94% were found for total bone marrow, rectum, and bladder. Mean DSC values for bowel cavity, all bowel, small bowel, and large bowel were 95%, 91%, 87% and 81%, respectively. Total bone marrow, bladder, and bowel cavity segmentations derived from our model were rated excellent (89%, 93%, 42%), good (9%, 5%, 42%), or acceptable (2%, 2%, 16%) on average. For almost all the evaluated DVH indices, no significant difference between model predictions and manual delineations was found. Delineation time per patient could be reduced from 40 to 12 min, including manual corrections of model predictions, and to 4 min without corrections.

conclusionsOur Pelvic U-Net led to credible and clinically applicable OAR segmentations and showed improved performance compared to previous studies. Even though manual adjustments were needed for some predicted structures, segmentation time could be reduced by 70% on average. This allows for an accelerated radiation therapy treatment planning workflow for anal cancer patients.

Indexed as

Anus NeoplasmsOrgans at RiskAttentionHumansNeural Networks, ComputerPelvisSemanticsAnal cancerDeep learningOrgans at riskRadiation therapySemantic segmentation

Identifiers

PMID35765038
PMCPMC9238000
OpenAlexW4283641656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.