ArticleScientific reports2024
Performance analysis and knowledge-based quality assurance of critical organ auto-segmentation for pediatric craniospinal irradiation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of deep learning on CT-based organ-at-risk delineation for flank irradiation in paediatric renal tumours: a SIOP-RTSG radiotherapy committee study.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Atlas and Neural Network Autosegmentation Methods for Pediatric Craniospinal Irradiation With the Development of a Knowledge-Based Quality Assurance Tool.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Trade-off of different deep learning-based auto-segmentation approaches for treatment planning of pediatric craniospinal irradiation autocontouring of OARs for pediatric CSI.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) is a vital therapeutic approach utilized for young patients suffering from central nervous system disorders such as medulloblastoma. The task of accurately outlining the treatment area is particularly time-consuming due to the presence of several sensitive organs at risk (OAR) that can be affected by radiation. This study aimed to assess two different methods for automating the segmentation process: an atlas technique and a deep learning neural network approach. Additionally, a novel method was devised to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of automated segmentation as a knowledge-based quality assurance (QA) tool. Involving a patient cohort of 100, ranging in ages from 2 to 25 years with a median age of 8, this study employed quantitative metrics centered around overlap and distance calculations to determine the most effective approach for practical clinical application. The contours generated by two distinct methods of atlas and neural network were compared to ground truth contours approved by a radiation oncologist, utilizing 13 distinct metrics. Furthermore, an innovative QA tool was conceptualized, designed for forthcoming cases based on the baseline dataset of 100 patient cases. The calculated metrics indicated that, in the majority of cases (60.58%), the neural network method demonstrated a notably higher alignment with the ground truth. Instances where no difference was observed accounted for 31.25%, while utilization of the atlas method represented 8.17%. The QA tool results showed that the two approaches achieved 100% agreement in 39.4% of instances for the atlas method and in 50.6% of instances for the neural network auto-segmentation. The results indicate that the neural network approach showcases superior performance, and its significantly closer physical alignment to ground truth contours in the majority of cases. The metrics derived from overlap and distance measurements have enabled clinicians to discern the optimal choice for practical clinical application.
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.