Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37089904›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023

Analytic calculations and synthetic shapes for validation of quantitative contour comparison software.

Djamal Boukerroui, Eliana Vasquez Osorio, Ellen Brunenberg, Mark J Gooding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Djamal BoukerrouiMirada Medical Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Eliana Vasquez OsorioUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Ellen BrunenbergRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mark J GoodingMirada Medical Ltd, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A high level of variability in reported values was observed in a recent survey of contour similarity measures (CSMs) calculation tools. Such variations in the output measurements prevent meaningful comparison between studies. The purpose of this study was to develop a dataset with analytically calculated gold standard values to facilitate standardization and ensure accuracy of CSM implementations. The dataset was generated in the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format. Both the dataset and the software used for its generation are made publicly available to encourage robust testing of CSM implementations for accuracy, improving consistency between different implementations.

Indexed as

ContouringRadiotherapySynthetic shapesValidation

Identifiers

PMID37089904
PMCPMC10119950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.