ArticleInsights into imaging2022
Quality assurance for automatically generated contours with additional deep learning.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A dual-layer quality assurance approach leveraging dose prediction for efficient review of automated contours of organs at risk in the brain in radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based auto-segmentation model for clinical target volume delineation in brachytherapy after parotid cancer surgery.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2025Article
- A semi-automated workflow for cohort-wise preparation of radiotherapy data for dose-response modeling, including autosegmentation of organs at risk.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications - A scoping review.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2024Article
- Deep learning-based automatic contour quality assurance for auto-segmented abdominal MR-Linac contours.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Can we predict pathology without surgery? Weighing the added value of multiparametric MRI and whole prostate radiomics in integrative machine learning models.European radiology · 2024Article
- Automatic gross tumor volume segmentation with failure detection for safe implementation in locally advanced cervical cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Clinical adoption of deep learning target auto-segmentation for radiation therapy: challenges, clinical risks, and mitigation strategies.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- A network score-based metric to optimize the quality assurance of automatic radiotherapy target segmentations.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Deep-Learning-Based Dose Predictor for Glioblastoma-Assessing the Sensitivity and Robustness for Dose Awareness in Contouring.Cancers · 2023Article
- Comparison of automated segmentation techniques for magnetic resonance images of the prostate.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.