ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Evaluation of generalization ability for deep learning-based auto-segmentation accuracy in limited field of view CBCT of male pelvic region.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organ-contour-driven auto-matching algorithm in image-guided radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of generalization ability for deep learning-based auto-segmentation accuracy in limited field of view CBCT of male pelvic region.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate generalization ability of segmentation accuracy for limited FOV CBCT in the male pelvic region using a full-image CNN. Auto-segmentation accuracy was evaluated using various datasets with different intensity distributions and FOV sizes.
methodsA total of 171 CBCT datasets from patients with prostate cancer were enrolled. There were 151, 10, and 10 CBCT datasets acquired from Vero4DRT, TrueBeam STx, and Clinac-iX, respectively. The FOV for Vero4DRT, TrueBeam STx, and Clinac-iX was 20, 26, and 25 cm, respectively. The ROIs, including the bladder, prostate, rectum, and seminal vesicles, were manually delineated. The U
resultsThe mean scores ± standard deviation of visual evaluation for bladder, prostate, rectum, and seminal vesicle in all treatment machines were 1.0 ± 0.7, 1.5 ± 0.6, 1.4 ± 0.6, and 2.1 ± 0.8 points, respectively. The median DSC values for all imaging devices were ≥0.94 for the bladder, 0.84-0.87 for the prostate and rectum, and 0.48-0.69 for the seminal vesicles. Although the DSC values for the bladder and seminal vesicles were significantly different among the three imaging devices, the DSC value of the bladder changed by less than 1% point. The median MSD values for all imaging devices were ≤1.2 mm for the bladder and 1.4-2.2 mm for the prostate, rectum, and seminal vesicles. The MSD values for the seminal vesicles were significantly different between the three imaging devices.
conclusionThe proposed method is effective for testing datasets with different intensity distributions and FOV from training 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.