ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Validation of clinical acceptability of deep-learning-based automated segmentation of organs-at-risk for head-and-neck radiotherapy treatment planning.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delta radiomics: an updated systematic review.La Radiologia medica · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical evaluation of three deep learning contouring models for head and neck organs at risk and lymph node levels.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Segmenting scaffolds with ingrown bone in micro-CT images: considerations of evaluation metrics and loss functions.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Optimizing the delivery of radiotherapy with artificial intelligence.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in oncology: linking biological discovery to clinical utility.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- AI-surrogate structure and dose correlation for left anterior descending artery in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a quasi-automatic treatment planning workflow for head-and-neck cancer in radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Inter-observer variability in radiotherapy contouring with the use of autocontouring software: A systematic review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Trustworthy artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: cross-industry lessons for development, validation, and deployment.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- The impact of neck tilt on the accuracy of deep learning generated contours for CT images of the head and neck.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Measured Tumor Burden and Pre-Treatment Circulating Tumor DNA in Human Papilloma Virus-Associated Oropharynx Cancer.Head & neck · 2025Article
- Review
- Multicentre evaluation of deep learning CT autosegmentation of the head and neck region for radiotherapy.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Hu similarity coefficient: a clinically oriented metric to evaluate contour accuracy in radiation therapy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Gross failure rates and failure modes for a commercial AI-based auto-segmentation algorithm in head and neck cancer patients.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- NRG Oncology Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Deep Learning-Based Auto-segmentation for Radiation Therapy: Current Developments, Clinical Considerations, and Future Directions.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024Article
- Large-scale dose evaluation of deep learning organ contours in head-and-neck radiotherapy by leveraging existing plans.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Radiotherapy Contouring and Planning to Improve Global Access to Cancer Care.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Knowledge-based quality assurance of a comprehensive set of organ at risk contours for head and neck radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 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
24 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Organ-at-risk segmentation for head and neck cancer radiation therapy is a complex and time-consuming process (requiring up to 42 individual structure, and may delay start of treatment or even limit access to function-preserving care. Feasibility of using a deep learning (DL) based autosegmentation model to reduce contouring time without compromising contour accuracy is assessed through a blinded randomized trial of radiation oncologists (ROs) using retrospective, de-identified patient data. Methods: Two head and neck expert ROs used dedicated time to create gold standard (GS) contours on computed tomography (CT) images. 445 CTs were used to train a custom 3D U-Net DL model covering 42 organs-at-risk, with an additional 20 CTs were held out for the randomized trial. For each held-out patient dataset, one of the eight participant ROs was randomly allocated to review and revise the contours produced by the DL model, while another reviewed contours produced by a medical dosimetry assistant (MDA), both blinded to their origin. Time required for MDAs and ROs to contour was recorded, and the unrevised DL contours, as well as the RO-revised contours by the MDAs and DL model were compared to the GS for that patient. Results: Mean time for initial MDA contouring was 2.3 hours (range 1.6-3.8 hours) and RO-revision took 1.1 hours (range, 0.4-4.4 hours), compared to 0.7 hours (range 0.1-2.0 hours) for the RO-revisions to DL contours. Total time reduced by 76% (95%-Confidence Interval: 65%-88%) and RO-revision time reduced by 35% (95%-CI,-39%-91%). All geometric and dosimetric metrics computed, agreement with GS was equivalent or significantly greater (p<0.05) for RO-revised DL contours compared to the RO-revised MDA contours, including volumetric Dice similarity coefficient (VDSC), surface DSC, added path length, and the 95%-Hausdorff distance. 32 OARs (76%) had mean VDSC greater than 0.8 for the RO-revised DL contours, compared to 20 (48%) for RO-revised MDA contours, and 34 (81%) for the unrevised DL OARs. Conclusion: DL autosegmentation demonstrated significant time-savings for organ-at-risk contouring while improving agreement with the institutional GS, indicating comparable accuracy of DL model. Integration into the clinical practice with a prospective evaluation is currently underway.
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.