ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Automated confidence estimation in deep learning auto-segmentation for brain organs at risk on MRI for radiotherapy.
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 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.
- Leveraging network uncertainty to identify regions in rectal cancer clinical target volume auto-segmentations likely requiring manual edits.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Automated confidence estimation in deep learning auto-segmentation for brain organs at risk on MRI for radiotherapy.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe have built a novel AI-driven QA method called AutoConfidence (ACo), to estimate segmentation confidence on a per-voxel basis without gold standard segmentations, enabling robust, efficient review of automated segmentation (AS). We have demonstrated this method in brain OAR AS on MRI, using internal and external (third-party) AS models.
methodsThirty-two retrospectives, MRI planned, glioma cases were randomly selected from a local clinical cohort for ACo training. A generator was trained adversarialy to produce internal autosegmentations (IAS) with a discriminator to estimate voxel-wise IAS uncertainty, given the input MRI. Confidence maps for each proposed segmentation were produced for operator use in AS editing and were compared with "difference to gold-standard" error maps. Nine cases were used for testing ACo performance on IAS and validation with two external deep learning segmentation model predictions [external model with low-quality AS (EM-LQ) and external model with high-quality AS (EM-HQ)]. Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC), false-positive rate (FPR), false-negative rate (FNR), and visual assessment were used for evaluation. Edge removal and geometric distance corrections were applied to achieve more useful and clinically relevant confidence maps and performance metrics.
resultsACo showed generally excellent performance on both internal and external segmentations, across all OARs (except lenses). MCC was higher on IAS and low-quality external segmentations (EM-LQ) than high-quality ones (EM-HQ). On IAS and EM-LQ, average MCC (excluding lenses) varied from 0.6 to 0.9, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.13 and ≤0.21, respectively. For EM-HQ, average MCC varied from 0.4 to 0.8, while average FPR and FNR were ≤0.37 and ≤0.22, respectively.
conclusionACo was a reliable predictor of uncertainty and errors on AS generated both internally and externally, demonstrating its potential as an independent, reference-free QA tool, which could help operators deliver robust, efficient autosegmentation in the radiotherapy clinic.
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.