ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Vendor-Pretrained and Custom-Trained Deep Learning Segmentation Models for Head-and-Neck, Breast, and Prostate Cancers.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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 and regression test of a commercial deep-learning auto-segmentation model.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- A two-stage deep learning pipeline for automated detection and localization of endotracheal tubes on pediatric chest radiographs: a pilot study.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Deep ensemble optimized models for probabilistic CTV breast segmentation.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- The impact of neck tilt on the accuracy of deep learning generated contours for CT images of the head and neck.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWe assessed the influence of local patients and clinical characteristics on the performance of commercial deep learning (DL) segmentation models for head-and-neck (HN), breast, and prostate cancers.
methodsClinical computed tomography (CT) scans and clinically approved contours of 210 patients (53 HN, 49 left breast, 55 right breast, and 53 prostate cancer) were used to train and validate segmentation models integrated within a vendor-supplied DL training toolkit and to assess the performance of both vendor-pretrained and custom-trained models. Four custom models (HN, left breast, right breast, and prostate) were trained and validated with 30 (training)/5 (validation) HN, 34/5 left breast, 39/5 right breast, and 30/5 prostate patients to auto-segment a total of 24 organs at risk (OARs). Subsequently, both vendor-pretrained and custom-trained models were tested on the remaining patients from each group. Auto-segmented contours were evaluated by comparing them with clinically approved contours via the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean surface distance (MSD). The performance of the left and right breast models was assessed jointly according to ipsilateral/contralateral locations.
resultsThe average DSCs for all structures in vendor-pretrained and custom-trained models were as follows: 0.81 ± 0.12 and 0.86 ± 0.11 in HN; 0.67 ± 0.16 and 0.80 ± 0.11 in the breast; and 0.87 ± 0.09 and 0.92 ± 0.06 in the prostate. The corresponding average MSDs were 0.81 ± 0.76 mm and 0.76 ± 0.56 mm (HN), 4.85 ± 2.44 mm and 2.42 ± 1.49 mm (breast), and 2.17 ± 1.39 mm and 1.21 ± 1.00 mm (prostate). Notably, custom-trained models showed significant improvements over vendor-pretrained models for 14 of 24 OARs, reflecting the influence of data/contouring variations in segmentation performance.
conclusionsThese findings underscore the substantial impact of institutional preferences and clinical practices on the implementation of vendor-pretrained models. We also found that a relatively small amount of institutional data was sufficient to train customized segmentation models with sufficient accuracy.
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.