ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Lesion segmentation on
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-assisted assessment of metabolic response to tebentafusp in metastatic uveal melanoma: a long axial field-of-view [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- A review of artificial intelligence in brachytherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Article
- Deep learning-assisted lesion segmentation in PET/CT imaging: A feasibility study for salvage radiation therapy in prostate cancer.Oncoscience · 2024Article
- Weakly supervised large-scale pancreatic cancer detection using multi-instance learning.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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and purpose: A novel radiotracer, Materials and methods: We retrospectively identified 84 patients who are enrolled in Arm B of the Emory Molecular Prostate Imaging for Radiotherapy Enhancement (EMPIRE-1) trial. All 84 patients had prostate adenocarcinoma and underwent prostatectomy and Results: All three deep learning methods were able to detect 144/155 lesions and 153/155 lesions successfully when PET+CT and PET only, respectively, served as input. Quantitative results demonstrated that the neural network with the best performance was able to segment lesions with an average DSC of 0.68 ± 0.15 and HD95 of 4 ± 2 mm. The center of mass of the segmented contours deviated from physician contours by approximately 2 mm on average, and the volume difference was less than 1 cc. The novel network proposed by us achieves the best performance compared to current networks. The addition of CT as input to the neural network contributed to more cases of failure (DSC = 0), and among those cases of DSC > 0, it was shown to produce no statistically significant difference with the use of only PET as input for our proposed method. Conclusion: Quantitative results demonstrated the feasibility of the deep learning methods in automatically segmenting lesions on
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.