Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37869474›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023

A network score-based metric to optimize the quality assurance of automatic radiotherapy target segmentations.

Roque Rodríguez Outeiral, Nicole Ferreira Silvério, Patrick J González, Eva E Schaake, Tomas Janssen, Uulke A van der Heide, Rita Simões

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Systematic review of artificial intelligence in brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications - A scoping review.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Response letter to WahidPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Roque Rodríguez OuteiralDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nicole Ferreira SilvérioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Patrick J GonzálezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Eva E SchaakeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tomas JanssenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Uulke A van der HeideDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Rita SimõesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Existing methods for quality assurance of the radiotherapy auto-segmentations focus on the correlation between the average model entropy and the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) only. We identified a metric directly derived from the output of the network and correlated it with clinically relevant metrics for contour accuracy. Materials and Methods: Magnetic Resonance Imaging auto-segmentations were available for the gross tumor volume for cervical cancer brachytherapy (106 segmentations) and for the clinical target volume for rectal cancer external-beam radiotherapy (77 segmentations). The nnU-Net's output before binarization was taken as a score map. We defined a metric as the mean of the voxels in the score map above a threshold (λ). Comparisons were made with the mean and standard deviation over the score map and with the mean over the entropy map. The DSC, the 95th Hausdorff distance, the mean surface distance (MSD) and the surface DSC were computed for segmentation quality. Correlations between the studied metrics and model quality were assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). The area under the curve (AUC) was determined for detecting segmentations that require reviewing. Results: For both tasks, our metric (λ = 0.30) correlated more strongly with the segmentation quality than the mean over the entropy map (for surface DSC, r > 0.65 vs. r < 0.60). The AUC was above 0.84 for detecting MSD values above 2 mm. Conclusions: Our metric correlated strongly with clinically relevant segmentation metrics and detected segmentations that required reviewing, indicating its potential for automatic quality assurance of radiotherapy target auto-segmentations.

Indexed as

Automatic segmentationCervical cancerConfidence estimationQuality assuranceRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID37869474
PMCPMC10587515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.