ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Dosimetric impact of contour editing on CT and MRI deep-learning autosegmentation for brain OARs.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dosimetric impact of contour editing on CT and MRI deep-learning autosegmentation for brain OARs.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo establish the clinical applicability of deep-learning organ-at-risk autocontouring models (DL-AC) for brain radiotherapy. The dosimetric impact of contour editing, prior to model training, on performance was evaluated for both CT and MRI-based models. The correlation between geometric and dosimetric measures was also investigated to establish whether dosimetric assessment is required for clinical validation.
methodCT and MRI-based deep learning autosegmentation models were trained using edited and unedited clinical contours. Autosegmentations were dosimetrically compared to gold standard contours for a test cohort. D1%, D5%, D50%, and maximum dose were used as clinically relevant dosimetric measures. The statistical significance of dosimetric differences between the gold standard and autocontours was established using paired Student's t-tests. Clinically significant cases were identified via dosimetric headroom to the OAR tolerance. Pearson's Correlations were used to investigate the relationship between geometric measures and absolute percentage dose changes for each autosegmentation model.
resultsExcept for the right orbit, when delineated using MRI models, the dosimetric statistical analysis revealed no superior model in terms of the dosimetric accuracy between the CT DL-AC models or between the MRI DL-AC for any investigated brain OARs. The number of patients where the clinical significance threshold was exceeded was higher for the optic chiasm D1% than other OARs, for all autosegmentation models. A weak correlation was consistently observed between the outcomes of dosimetric and geometric evaluations.
conclusionsEditing contours before training the DL-AC model had no significant impact on dosimetry. The geometric test metrics were inadequate to estimate the impact of contour inaccuracies on dose. Accordingly, dosimetric analysis is needed to evaluate the clinical applicability of DL-AC models in the brain.
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.