ArticlePractical radiation oncology
Comprehensive Clinical Usability-Oriented Contour Quality Evaluation for Deep Learning Auto-segmentation: Combining Multiple Quantitative Metrics Through Machine Learning.
Article in Practical radiation oncology. 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.
- Clinical evaluation of novel deep learning-based auto-segmentation software: Utility and potential pitfalls.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning-driven advancements in gastrointestinal cancer: Paving the way for precision medicine.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Deep learning-based automatic contour quality assurance for auto-segmented abdominal MR-Linac contours.Physics in medicine and biology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe current commonly used metrics for evaluating the quality of auto-segmented contours have limitations and do not always reflect the clinical usefulness of the contours. This work aims to develop a novel contour quality classification (CQC) method by combining multiple quantitative metrics for clinical usability-oriented contour quality evaluation for deep learning-based auto-segmentation (DLAS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The CQC was designed to categorize contours on slices as acceptable, minor edit, or major edit based on the expected editing effort/time with supervised ensemble tree classification models using 7 quantitative metrics. Organ-specific models were trained for 5 abdominal organs (pancreas, duodenum, stomach, small, and large bowels) using 50 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data sets. Twenty additional MRI and 9 computed tomography (CT) data sets were employed for testing. Interobserver variation (IOV) was assessed among 6 observers and consensus labels were established through majority vote for evaluation. The CQC was also compared with a threshold-based baseline approach.
resultsFor the 5 organs, the average area under the curve was 0.982 ± 0.01 and 0.979 ± 0.01, the mean accuracy was 95.8% ± 1.7% and 94.3% ± 2.1%, and the mean risk rate was 0.8% ± 0.4% and 0.7% ± 0.5% for MRI and CT testing data set, respectively. The CQC results closely matched the IOV results (mean accuracy of 94.2% ± 0.8% and 94.8% ± 1.7%) and were significantly higher than those obtained using the threshold-based method (mean accuracy of 80.0% ± 4.7%, 83.8% ± 5.2%, and 77.3% ± 6.6% using 1, 2, and 3 metrics).
conclusionsThe CQC models demonstrated high performance in classifying the quality of contour slices. This method can address the limitations of existing metrics and offers an intuitive and comprehensive solution for clinically oriented evaluation and comparison of DLAS systems.
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.