ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2024
Impact of annotation imperfections and auto-curation for deep learning-based organ-at-risk segmentation.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Segmentation imperfections (noise) in radiotherapy organ-at-risk segmentation naturally arise from specialist experience and image quality. Using clinical contours can result in sub-optimal convolutional neural network (CNN) training and performance, but manual curation is costly. We address the impact of simulated and clinical segmentation noise on CNN parotid gland (PG) segmentation performance and provide proof-of-concept for an easily implemented auto-curation countermeasure. Methods and Materials: The impact of segmentation imperfections was investigated by simulating noise in clean, high-quality segmentations. Curation efficacy was tested by removing lowest-scoring Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) cases early during CNN training, both in simulated (5-fold) and clinical (10-fold) settings, using our full radiotherapy clinical cohort (RTCC; N = 1750 individual PGs). Statistical significance was assessed using Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Curation efficacies were evaluated using DSC and mean surface distance (MSD) on in-distribution and out-of-distribution data and visual inspection. Results: The curation step correctly removed median(range) 98(90-100)% of corrupted segmentations and restored the majority (1.2 %/1.3 %) of DSC lost from training with 30 % corrupted segmentations. This effect was masked when using typical (non-curated) validation data. In RTCC, 20 % curation showed improved model generalizability which significantly improved out-of-distribution DSC and MSD (p < 1.0e-12, p < 1.0e-6). Improved consistency was observed in particularly the medial and anterior lobes. Conclusions: Up to 30% case removal, the curation benefit outweighed the training variance lost through curation. Considering the notable ease of implementation, high sensitivity in simulations and performance gains already at lower curation fractions, as a conservative middle ground, we recommend 15% curation of training cases when training CNNs using clinical PG contours.
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.