Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39435039›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Based Autosegmentation of Organs at Risk in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Solomon Kibudde, Awusi Kavuma, Yao Hao, Tianyu Zhao, Hiram Gay, Jacaranda Van Rheenen, Pavan Mukesh Jhaveri, Minjmaa Minjgee, Enkhsetseg Vanchinbazar, Urdenekhuu Nansalmaa and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Solomon KibuddeDivision of Radiation Oncology, Uganda Cancer Institute, Kampala, Uganda.
Awusi KavumaDivision of Radiation Oncology, Uganda Cancer Institute, Kampala, Uganda.
Yao HaoDivision of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Tianyu ZhaoDivision of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Hiram GayDivision of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Jacaranda Van RheenenDivision of Radiation Oncology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Pavan Mukesh JhaveriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Minjmaa MinjgeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Enkhsetseg VanchinbazarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Urdenekhuu NansalmaaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Baozhou SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Radiation therapy (RT) processes require significant human resources and expertise, creating a barrier to rapid RT deployment in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Accurate segmentation of tumor targets and organs at risk (OARs) is crucial for optimal RT. This study assessed the impact of artificial intelligence (AI)-based autosegmentation of OARs in 2 LMICs. Methods and Materials: Ten patients, comprising 5 head and neck (HN) cancer patients and 5 prostate cancer patients, were randomly selected. Planning computed tomography images were subjected to autosegmentation using an Food and Drug Administration-approved AI software tool and manual segmentation by experienced radiation oncologists from 2 LMIC RT clinics. The control data, obtained from a large academic institution in the United States, consisted of contours obtained by an experienced radiation oncologist. The segmentation time, DICE similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance, and mean surface distance were evaluated. Results: AI significantly reduced segmentation time, averaging 2 minutes per patient, compared with 57 to 84 minutes for manual contouring in LMICs. Compared with the control data, the AI pelvic contours provided better agreement than did the LMIC manual contours (mean DSC of 0.834 vs 0.807 in LMIC1 and 0.844 vs 0.801 in LMIC2). For HN contours, AI provided better agreement for the majority of OAR contours than manual contours in LMIC1 (mean DSC: 0.823 vs 0.821) or LMIC2 (mean DSC: 0.792 vs 0.748). Neither the AI nor LMIC manual contours had good agreement with the control data (DSC < 0.600) for the optic nerves, chiasm, and cochlea. Conclusions: AI-based autosegmentation generates OAR contours of comparable quality to manual segmentation for both pelvic and HN cancer patients in LMICs, with substantial time savings.

Identifiers

PMID39435039
PMCPMC11491949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.