ArticleCancers2024
Automated Organ Segmentation for Radiation Therapy: A Comparative Analysis of AI-Based Tools Versus Manual Contouring in Korean Cancer Patients.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Clinical edge-case stress testing of two Asia-developed AI auto-contouring systems using prostate radiotherapy planning CT images.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- The illusory correlation between geometrical similarity and physician satisfaction in heart auto-segmentation revealed by a physician-blind test.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- An advanced automated pipeline for brain tumour segmentation on magnetic resonance imaging for gamma knife radiosurgery.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
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
backgroundAccurate delineation of tumors and organs at risk (OARs) is crucial for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of OncoStudio, an AI-based auto-segmentation tool developed for Korean patients, compared with Protégé AI, a globally developed tool that uses data from Korean cancer patients.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 1200 Korean cancer patients treated with radiotherapy was conducted. Auto-contours generated via OncoStudio and Protégé AI were compared with manual contours across the head and neck and thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic organs. Accuracy was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance (MSD), and 95% Hausdorff distance (HD). Feedback was obtained from 10 participants, including radiation oncologists, residents, and radiation therapists, via an online survey with a Turing test component.
resultsOncoStudio outperformed Protégé AI in 85% of the evaluated OARs (
conclusionsOncoStudio, which is tailored for Korean patients, demonstrated superior segmentation accuracy across multiple anatomical regions, suggesting its suitability for radiotherapy planning in this population.
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.