ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Deep learning based automatic segmentation of the Internal Pudendal Artery in definitive radiotherapy treatment planning of localized prostate cancer.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Andrological Surgery: Current Landscape and Future Direction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Radiation-induced erectile dysfunction (RiED) commonly affects prostate cancer patients, prompting clinical trials across institutions to explore dose-sparing to internal-pudendal-arteries (IPA) for preserving sexual potency. IPA, challenging to segment, isn't conventionally considered an organ-at-risk (OAR). This study proposes a deep learning (DL) auto-segmentation model for IPA, using Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) or CT alone to accommodate varied clinical practices. Materials and methods: A total of 86 patients with CT and MRI images and noisy IPA labels were recruited in this study. We split the data into 42/14/30 for model training, testing, and a clinical observer study, respectively. There were three major innovations in this model: 1) we designed an architecture with squeeze-and-excite blocks and modality attention for effective feature extraction and production of accurate segmentation, 2) a novel loss function was used for training the model effectively with noisy labels, and 3) modality dropout strategy was used for making the model capable of segmentation in the absence of MRI. Results: Test dataset metrics were DSC 61.71 ± 7.7 %, ASD 2.5 ± .87 mm, and HD95 7.0 ± 2.3 mm. AI segmented contours showed dosimetric similarity to expert physician's contours. Observer study indicated higher scores for AI contours (mean = 3.7) compared to inexperienced physicians' contours (mean = 3.1). Inexperienced physicians improved scores to 3.7 when starting with AI contours. Conclusion: The proposed model achieved good quality IPA contours to improve uniformity of segmentation and to facilitate introduction of standardized IPA segmentation into clinical trials and practice.
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.