Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35976491›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2022

Quality assurance for automatically generated contours with additional deep learning.

Lars Johannes Isaksson, Paul Summers, Abhir Bhalerao, Sara Gandini, Sara Raimondi, Matteo Pepa, Mattia Zaffaroni, Giulia Corrao, Giovanni Carlo Mazzola, Marco Rotondi and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications - A scoping review.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

24 authors.

Lars Johannes IsakssonDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. larsjohannes.isaksson@ieo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1008-3466
Paul SummersDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Abhir BhaleraoDepartment of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwick, CV4 7AL, UK.
Sara GandiniMolecular and Pharmaco-Epidemiology Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Sara RaimondiMolecular and Pharmaco-Epidemiology Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Matteo PepaDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Mattia ZaffaroniDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia CorraoDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni Carlo MazzolaDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Marco RotondiDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giuliana Lo PrestiMolecular and Pharmaco-Epidemiology Unit, Department of Experimental Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Zaharudin HaronRadiology Department, National Cancer Institute, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Sara AlessiDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Paola PricoloDivision of Radiology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Francesco Alessandro MistrettaDivision of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Stefano LuzzagoDivision of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Federica CattaniMedical Physics Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Gennaro MusiDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Ottavio De CobelliDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Marta CremonesiRadiation Research Unit, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Roberto OrecchiaScientific Direction, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia MarvasoDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe PetraliaDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Barbara Alicja Jereczek-FossaDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDeploying an automatic segmentation model in practice should require rigorous quality assurance (QA) and continuous monitoring of the model's use and performance, particularly in high-stakes scenarios such as healthcare. Currently, however, tools to assist with QA for such models are not available to AI researchers. In this work, we build a deep learning model that estimates the quality of automatically generated contours.

methodsThe model was trained to predict the segmentation quality by outputting an estimate of the Dice similarity coefficient given an image contour pair as input. Our dataset contained 60 axial T2-weighted MRI images of prostates with ground truth segmentations along with 80 automatically generated segmentation masks. The model we used was a 3D version of the EfficientDet architecture with a custom regression head. For validation, we used a fivefold cross-validation. To counteract the limitation of the small dataset, we used an extensive data augmentation scheme capable of producing virtually infinite training samples from a single ground truth label mask. In addition, we compared the results against a baseline model that only uses clinical variables for its predictions.

resultsOur model achieved a mean absolute error of 0.020 ± 0.026 (2.2% mean percentage error) in estimating the Dice score, with a rank correlation of 0.42. Furthermore, the model managed to correctly identify incorrect segmentations (defined in terms of acceptable/unacceptable) 99.6% of the time.

conclusionWe believe that the trained model can be used alongside automatic segmentation tools to ensure quality and thus allow intervention to prevent undesired segmentation behavior.

Indexed as

Confidence calibrationDiagnostic imagingMagnetic resonance imagingProstateQuality assurance (Health care)

Identifiers

PMID35976491
PMCPMC9385913

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.