Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37693394›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023

Determining The Role Of Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors On Segmentation Quality: Insights From A Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.

Kareem A Wahid, Onur Sahin, Suprateek Kundu, Diana Lin, Anthony Alanis, Salik Tehami, Serageldin Kamel, Simon Duke, Michael V Sherer, Mathis Rasmussen and 11 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Kareem A WahidDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Onur SahinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Suprateek KunduDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Diana LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Anthony AlanisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Salik TehamiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Serageldin KamelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Simon DukeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK.
Michael V ShererDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Mathis RasmussenDepartment of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
Stine KorremanDepartment of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
David FuentesDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Michael CisloDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Benjamin E NelmsCanis Lupus, LLC, Merrimac, WI, USA.
John P ChristodouleasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
James D MurphyDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Abdallah S R MohamedDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Renjie HeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Mohammed A NaserDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Erin F GillespieFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Clifton D FullerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Development of functional magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients using novel MR-Linac deviceR01DE028290 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI CHRISTODOULEAS, JOHN PAUL, FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID · 2019 to 2023
$4.3M
Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) to Establish Objective Clinical Outcome Measures for Mandibular OsteoradionecrosisR01DE025248 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI LAI, STEPHEN Y · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
SCH: Personalized Rescheduling of Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Head & Neck CancerR01CA257814 · NCI · RICE UNIVERSITY · PI FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID, SCHAEFER, ANDREW J · 2021 to 2024
$1.8M
Image Guided Cancer Therapy Training ProgramT32CA261856 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Kristy Brock, Clifton David Fuller · 2022 to 2026
$1.2M
Fellow and Resident Radiation Oncology iNtensive Training in Imaging and Informatics to Empower Research Careers (FRONTI2ER)R25EB025787 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DAS, PRAJNAN, FULLER, CLIFTON DAVID · 2018 to 2022
$535k
Radiation-specific Automated Dental Dose Distributions via Machine-learning based Mapping for Accurate Predictions of (Peri)odontal Problems (RADMAP)R21DE031082 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI MORENO, AMY CATHERINE · 2021 to 2022
$452k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA257814NCI NIH HHS T32 CA261856NIBIB NIH HHS R25 EB025787NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE025248NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE028290NIDCR NIH HHS R21 DE031082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical image auto-segmentation is poised to revolutionize radiotherapy workflows. The quality of auto-segmentation training data, primarily derived from clinician observers, is of utmost importance. However, the factors influencing the quality of these clinician-derived segmentations have yet to be fully understood or quantified. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the role of common observer demographic variables on quantitative segmentation performance.

methodsOrgan at risk (OAR) and tumor volume segmentations provided by radiation oncologist observers from the Contouring Collaborative for Consensus in Radiation Oncology public dataset were utilized for this study. Segmentations were derived from five separate disease sites comprised of one patient case each: breast, sarcoma, head and neck (H&N), gynecologic (GYN), and gastrointestinal (GI). Segmentation quality was determined on a structure-by-structure basis by comparing the observer segmentations with an expert-derived consensus gold standard primarily using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC); surface DSC was investigated as a secondary metric. Metrics were stratified into binary groups based on previously established structure-specific expert-derived interobserver variability (IOV) cutoffs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models using Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian estimation were used to investigate the association between demographic variables and the binarized segmentation quality for each disease site separately. Variables with a highest density interval excluding zero - loosely analogous to frequentist significance - were considered to substantially impact the outcome measure.

resultsAfter filtering by practicing radiation oncologists, 574, 110, 452, 112, and 48 structure observations remained for the breast, sarcoma, H&N, GYN, and GI cases, respectively. The median percentage of observations that crossed the expert DSC IOV cutoff when stratified by structure type was 55% and 31% for OARs and tumor volumes, respectively. Bayesian regression analysis revealed tumor category had a substantial negative impact on binarized DSC for the breast (coefficient mean ± standard deviation: -0.97 ± 0.20), sarcoma (-1.04 ± 0.54), H&N (-1.00 ± 0.24), and GI (-2.95 ± 0.98) cases. There were no clear recurring relationships between segmentation quality and demographic variables across the cases, with most variables demonstrating large standard deviations and wide highest density intervals.

conclusionOur study highlights substantial uncertainty surrounding conventionally presumed factors influencing segmentation quality. Future studies should investigate additional demographic variables, more patients and imaging modalities, and alternative metrics of segmentation acceptability.

Identifiers

PMID37693394
PMCPMC10491357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.