ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024
The impact of multicentric datasets for the automated tumor delineation in primary prostate cancer using convolutional neural networks on
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of 2D and 3D nnU-Net models with two-label and three-label strategies for automatic segmentation and total metabolic tumor volume estimation of metastatic differentiated thyroid carcinoma on FDG-PET/CT.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Emerging frontiers and challenges of artificial intelligence in PSMA-PET imaging: pioneering a new chapter in prostate cancer care.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Convolutional neural networks for prostate cancer detection, classification, and segmentation: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis.European journal of radiology open · 2026Review
- Residual Conditional Variational Autoencoder for Multi-Center PET/CT Radiomic Feature Harmonization with Integrated Modeling of Batch Effects and Clinical Covariates.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Theranostics.Journal of nuclear medicine technology · 2025Review
- The potential of generative AI with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT: challenges and future directions.Medical review (2021) · 2025Review
- External phantom-based validation of a deep-learning network trained for upscaling of digital low count PET data.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- AI-Guided Delineation of Gross Tumor Volume for Body Tumors: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConvolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have emerged as transformative tools in the field of radiation oncology, significantly advancing the precision of contouring practices. However, the adaptability of these algorithms across diverse scanners, institutions, and imaging protocols remains a considerable obstacle. This study aims to investigate the effects of incorporating institution-specific datasets into the training regimen of CNNs to assess their generalization ability in real-world clinical environments. Focusing on a data-centric analysis, the influence of varying multi- and single center training approaches on algorithm performance is conducted.
methodsnnU-Net is trained using a dataset comprising 161
resultsThe mixed training approach yielded a median DSC of 0.76 (IQR: 0.64-0.84) in a five-fold cross-validation, showing no significant differences (p = 0.18) compared to models trained with data exclusion from each center, which performed with a median DSC of 0.74 (IQR: 0.56-0.86). Significant performance improvements regarding multi-center training were observed for the Dresden cohort (multi-center median DSC 0.71, IQR: 0.58-0.80 vs. single-center 0.68, IQR: 0.50-0.80, p < 0.001) and Cyprus cohort (multi-center 0.74, IQR: 0.62-0.83 vs. single-center 0.72, IQR: 0.54-0.82, p < 0.01). While Munich and Freiburg also showed performance improvements with multi-center training, results showed no statistical significance (Munich: multi-center DSC 0.74, IQR: 0.60-0.80 vs. single-center 0.72, IQR: 0.59-0.82, p > 0.05; Freiburg: multi-center 0.78, IQR: 0.53-0.87 vs. single-center 0.71, IQR: 0.53-0.83, p = 0.23).
conclusionCNNs trained for auto contouring intraprostatic GTV in
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.