ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023
A network score-based metric to optimize the quality assurance of automatic radiotherapy target segmentations.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic review of artificial intelligence in brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026Review
- A semi-automated workflow for cohort-wise preparation of radiotherapy data for dose-response modeling, including autosegmentation of organs at risk.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Leveraging network uncertainty to identify regions in rectal cancer clinical target volume auto-segmentations likely requiring manual edits.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of personalized policies for implementing organ-at-risk sparing adaptive radiation therapy in head and neck cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications - A scoping review.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Uncertainty Quantification in Radiotherapy Applications - A Scoping Review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Harnessing uncertainty in radiotherapy auto-segmentation quality assurance.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Clinical adoption of deep learning target auto-segmentation for radiation therapy: challenges, clinical risks, and mitigation strategies.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
- Response letter to WahidPhysics and imaging in radiation 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.