ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Generalizability, robustness, and correction bias of segmentations of thoracic organs at risk in CT images.
Article in European radiology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess and compare two state-of-the-art deep learning approaches for segmenting four thoracic organs at risk (OAR)-the esophagus, trachea, heart, and aorta-in CT images in the context of radiotherapy planning. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe compare a multi-organ segmentation approach and the fusion of multiple single-organ models, each dedicated to one OAR. All were trained using nnU-Net with the default parameters and the full-resolution configuration. We evaluate their robustness with adversarial perturbations, and their generalizability on external datasets, and explore potential biases introduced by expert corrections compared to fully manual delineations.
resultsThe two approaches show excellent performance with an average Dice score of 0.928 for the multi-class setting and 0.930 when fusing the four single-organ models. The evaluation of external datasets and common procedural adversarial noise demonstrates the good generalizability of these models. In addition, expert corrections of both models show significant bias to the original automated segmentation. The average Dice score between the two corrections is 0.93, ranging from 0.88 for the trachea to 0.98 for the heart.
conclusionBoth approaches demonstrate excellent performance and generalizability in segmenting four thoracic OARs, potentially improving efficiency in radiotherapy planning. However, the multi-organ setting proves advantageous for its efficiency, requiring less training time and fewer resources, making it a preferable choice for this task. Moreover, corrections of AI segmentation by clinicians may lead to biases in the results of AI approaches. A test set, manually annotated, should be used to assess the performance of such methods. KEY POINTS: Question While manual delineation of thoracic organs at risk is labor-intensive, prone to errors, and time-consuming, evaluation of AI models performing this task lacks robustness. Findings The deep-learning model using the nnU-Net framework showed excellent performance, generalizability, and robustness in segmenting thoracic organs in CT, enhancing radiotherapy planning efficiency. Clinical relevance Automatic segmentation of thoracic organs at risk can save clinicians time without compromising the quality of the delineations, and extensive evaluation across diverse settings demonstrates the potential of integrating such models into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39738559What 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.