Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38292888›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Artificial Intelligence-Based Autosegmentation: Advantages in Delineation, Absorbed Dose-Distribution, and Logistics.

Gustavo R Sarria, Fabian Kugel, Fred Roehner, Julian Layer, Cas Dejonckheere, Davide Scafa, Muemtaz Koeksal, Christina Leitzen, Leonard Christopher Schmeel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Quantifying manual editing time in autocontouring via audit log analysis.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Continuing Professional Development-Radiation Therapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

9 authors.

Gustavo R SarriaDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Fabian KugelDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Fred RoehnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Julian LayerDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Cas DejonckheereDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Davide ScafaDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Muemtaz KoeksalDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Christina LeitzenDepartment of Radiation Oncology.
Leonard Christopher SchmeelDepartment of Radiation Oncology.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The study's purpose was to compare the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) in auto-contouring compared with a human practitioner in terms of precision, differences in dose distribution, and time consumption. Methods and Materials: Datasets of previously irradiated patients in 3 different segments (head and neck, breast, and prostate cancer) were retrospectively collected. An experienced radiation oncologist (MD) performed organs-at-risk (OARs) and standard clinical target volume delineations as baseline structures for comparison. AI-based autocontours were generated in 2 additional CT copies; therefore, 3 groups were assessed: MD alone, AI alone, and AI plus MD corrections (AI+C). Differences in Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and person-hour burden were assessed. Furthermore, changes in clinically relevant dose-volume parameters were evaluated and compared. Results: Seventy-five previously treated cases were collected (25 per segment) for the analysis. Compared with MD contours, the mean DSC scores were higher than 0.7 for 74% and 80% of AI and AI+C, respectively. After corrections, 17.1% structures presented DSC score deviations higher than 0.1 and 10.4% dose-volume parameters significantly changed in AI-contoured structures. The time consumption assessment yielded mean person-hour reductions of 68%, 51%, and 71% for breast, prostate, and head and neck cancer, respectively. Conclusions: In great extent, AI yielded clinically acceptable OARs and certain clinical target volumes in the explored anatomic segments. Sparse correction and assessment requirements place AI+C as a standard workflow. Minimal clinically relevant differences in OAR exposure were identified. A substantial amount of person-hours could be repurposed with this technology.

Identifiers

PMID38292888
PMCPMC10823084

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.