ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2022
A Proof-of-Concept Study of Artificial Intelligence-assisted Contour Editing.
Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical acceptability of automatically generated lymph node levels and structures of deglutition and mastication for head and neck radiation therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Enhancing Radiotherapy Workflow for Head and Neck Cancer with Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- A simple single-cycle interactive strategy to improve deep learning-based segmentation of organs-at-risk in head-and-neck cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Extensive upfront validation and testing are needed prior to the clinical implementation of AI-based auto-segmentation tools.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Accelerating voxelwise annotation of cross-sectional imaging through AI collaborative labeling with quality assurance and bias mitigation.Frontiers in radiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To present a concept called artificial intelligence-assisted contour editing (AIACE) and demonstrate its feasibility. Materials and Methods: The conceptual workflow of AIACE is as follows: Given an initial contour that requires clinician editing, the clinician indicates where large editing is needed, and a trained deep learning model uses this input to update the contour. This process repeats until a clinically acceptable contour is achieved. In this retrospective, proof-of-concept study, the authors demonstrated the concept on two-dimensional (2D) axial CT images from three head-and-neck cancer datasets by simulating the interaction with the AIACE model to mimic the clinical environment. The input at each iteration was one mouse click on the desired location of the contour segment. Model performance is quantified with the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95th percentile of Hausdorff distance (HD95) based on three datasets with sample sizes of 10, 28, and 20 patients. Results: The average DSCs and HD95 values of the automatically generated initial contours were 0.82 and 4.3 mm, 0.73 and 5.6 mm, and 0.67 and 11.4 mm for the three datasets, which were improved to 0.91 and 2.1 mm, 0.86 and 2.5 mm, and 0.86 and 3.3 mm, respectively, with three mouse clicks. Each deep learning-based contour update required about 20 msec. Conclusion: The authors proposed the newly developed AIACE concept, which uses deep learning models to assist clinicians in editing contours efficiently and effectively, and demonstrated its feasibility by using 2D axial CT images from three head-and-neck cancer datasets.
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.