Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35833287›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2022

Combining natural and artificial intelligence for robust automatic anatomy segmentation: Application in neck and thorax auto-contouring.

Jayaram K Udupa, Tiange Liu, Chao Jin, Liming Zhao, Dewey Odhner, Yubing Tong, Vibhu Agrawal, Gargi Pednekar, Sanghita Nag, Tarun Kotia and 20 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Predicting the Effort Required to Manually Mend Auto-Segmentations.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Deep learning for autosegmentation for radiotherapy treatment planning: State-of-the-art and novel perspectives.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  12. An anthropomorphic diagnosis system of pulmonary nodules using weak annotation-based deep learning.Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Predicting human effort needed to correct auto-segmentations.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024
    Article
  16. Anatomic attention regions via optimal anatomy modeling and recognition for DL-based image segmentation.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024
    Article
  17. Optimal strategies for modeling anatomy in a hybrid intelligence framework for auto-segmentation of organs.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

30 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Jayaram K UdupaMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Tiange LiuMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Chao JinMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Liming ZhaoMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dewey OdhnerMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Yubing TongMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Vibhu AgrawalMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Gargi PednekarQuantitative Radiology Solutions, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sanghita NagQuantitative Radiology Solutions, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Tarun KotiaQuantitative Radiology Solutions, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael GoodmanQuantitative Radiology Solutions, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
E Paul WileytoDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dimitris MihailidisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
John Nicholas LukensDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abigail T BermanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Joann StambaughDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Tristan LimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rupa ChowdaryDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dheeraj JalluriDepartment of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Salma K JabbourDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Sung KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Meral ReyhanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Clifford G RobinsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Wade L ThorstadDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jehee Isabelle ChoiNew York Proton Center, New York, New York, USA.
Robert PressNew York Proton Center, New York, New York, USA.
Charles B SimoneNew York Proton Center, New York, New York, USA.
Joe CamarattaQuantitative Radiology Solutions, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Steve OwensQuantitative Radiology Solutions, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Drew A TorigianMedical Image Processing Group, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USQuantitative BioSciences · USNew York Proton Center · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USWashington University in St. Louis · USYanshan University · CN

Funding

Models and methods for automatically measuring disease body-wide and staging disease via FDG-PET/CT in LymphomaR01CA255748 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SCHUSTER, STEPHEN J, TORIGIAN, DREW · 2021 to 2024
$2.3M
Automated Object Contouring Methods & Software for Radiotherapy PlanningR42CA199735 · NCI · QUANTITATIVE RADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC · PI OWENS, STEVE, UDUPA, JAYARAM K · 2018 to 2020
$1.9M
Dr. Salma Jabbour’s NCI Research Specialist (Clinician Scientist) Award (R50)R50CA275877 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Salma Jabbour · 2023 to 2026
$785k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA255748NCI NIH HHS R42 CA199735NCI NIH HHS R42CA199735NCI NIH HHS R50 CA275877
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomatic segmentation of 3D objects in computed tomography (CT) is challenging. Current methods, based mainly on artificial intelligence (AI) and end-to-end deep learning (DL) networks, are weak in garnering high-level anatomic information, which leads to compromised efficiency and robustness. This can be overcome by incorporating natural intelligence (NI) into AI methods via computational models of human anatomic knowledge. PURPOSE: We formulate a hybrid intelligence (HI) approach that integrates the complementary strengths of NI and AI for organ segmentation in CT images and illustrate performance in the application of radiation therapy (RT) planning via multisite clinical evaluation.

methodsThe system employs five modules: (i) body region recognition, which automatically trims a given image to a precisely defined target body region; (ii) NI-based automatic anatomy recognition object recognition (AAR-R), which performs object recognition in the trimmed image without DL and outputs a localized fuzzy model for each object; (iii) DL-based recognition (DL-R), which refines the coarse recognition results of AAR-R and outputs a stack of 2D bounding boxes (BBs) for each object; (iv) model morphing (MM), which deforms the AAR-R fuzzy model of each object guided by the BBs output by DL-R; and (v) DL-based delineation (DL-D), which employs the object containment information provided by MM to delineate each object. NI from (ii), AI from (i), (iii), and (v), and their combination from (iv) facilitate the HI system.

resultsThe HI system was tested on 26 organs in neck and thorax body regions on CT images obtained prospectively from 464 patients in a study involving four RT centers. Data sets from one separate independent institution involving 125 patients were employed in training/model building for each of the two body regions, whereas 104 and 110 data sets from the 4 RT centers were utilized for testing on neck and thorax, respectively. In the testing data sets, 83% of the images had limitations such as streak artifacts, poor contrast, shape distortion, pathology, or implants. The contours output by the HI system were compared to contours drawn in clinical practice at the four RT centers by utilizing an independently established ground-truth set of contours as reference. Three sets of measures were employed: accuracy via Dice coefficient (DC) and Hausdorff boundary distance (HD), subjective clinical acceptability via a blinded reader study, and efficiency by measuring human time saved in contouring by the HI system. Overall, the HI system achieved a mean DC of 0.78 and 0.87 and a mean HD of 2.22 and 4.53 mm for neck and thorax, respectively. It significantly outperformed clinical contouring in accuracy and saved overall 70% of human time over clinical contouring time, whereas acceptability scores varied significantly from site to site for both auto-contours and clinically drawn contours.

conclusionsThe HI system is observed to behave like an expert human in robustness in the contouring task but vastly more efficiently. It seems to use NI help where image information alone will not suffice to decide, first for the correct localization of the object and then for the precise delineation of the boundary.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansanatomy modelsauto-contouring organscomputed tomographydeep learninghybrid intelligenceimage segmentation

Identifiers

PMID35833287
PMCPMC10087050
OpenAlexW4285390037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.