ArticleEJNMMI physics2023
Does consensus contours improve robustness and accuracy on
Article in EJNMMI 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.
- Radiomics-Based Prediction of Treatment Response in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Pre-Treatment CT Imaging Features.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Does consensus contour improve robustness and accuracy inEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study is to explore the robustness and accuracy of consensus contours with 225 nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) clinical cases and 13 extended cardio-torso simulated lung tumors (XCAT) based on 2-deoxy-2-[
methodsPrimary tumor segmentation was performed with two different initial masks on 225 NPC
resultsAP presented the highest variability for MATV in different masks, and ConSeg presented much better TRT performances in MATV compared with AP, and slightly poorer TRT in MATV compared with ST or 41MAXin most cases. Similar trends were also found in RE and DSC with the simulated data. The average of four segmentation results (AveSeg) showed better or comparable results in accuracy for most cases with respect to ConSeg. AP, AveSeg and ConSeg presented better RE and DSC in irregular masks as compared with rectangle masks. Additionally, all methods underestimated the tumour boundaries in relation to the ground truth for XCAT including respiratory motion.
conclusionsThe consensus method could be a robust approach to alleviate segmentation variabilities, but did not seem to improve the accuracy of segmentation results on average. Irregular initial masks might be at least in some cases attributable to mitigate the segmentation variability as well.
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.