ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
Guidance on selecting and evaluating AI auto-segmentation systems in clinical radiotherapy: insights from a six-vendor analysis.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 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
- The complementary roles of oversight, education, and collaboration in the responsible integration of artificial intelligence in radiation medicine: White paper of CADRA.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Review
- Quantifying the AI readiness gap: An international, multidisciplinary assessment of artificial intelligence literacy in the radiation oncology community.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluating artificial intelligence versus human-generated contours in the thorax.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Quantifying manual editing time in autocontouring via audit log analysis.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Auto-segmentation of organs-of-interest clinical acceptability & reproducibility framework in head and neck cancer.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of automated AI-based contouring and stable radiomic feature assessment by HyperSight-CBCT Imaging for adaptive high-precision radiotherapy of prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The impact of AI on modern oncology from early detection to personalized cancer treatment.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- Trustworthy artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: cross-industry lessons for development, validation, and deployment.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Geometric, dosimetric and psychometric evaluation of three commercial AI software solutions for OAR auto-segmentation in head and neck radiotherapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted radiation imaging pathways for distinguishing uterine fibroids and malignant lesions in patients presenting with cancer pain: a literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Quantitative Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Organ Segmentation Across Multiple Anatomic Sites Using 8 Commercial Software Platforms.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) based auto-segmentation has demonstrated numerous benefits to clinical radiotherapy workflows. However, the rapidly changing regulatory, research, and market environment presents challenges around selecting and evaluating the most suitable solution. To support the clinical adoption of AI auto-segmentation systems, Selection Criteria recommendations were developed to enable a holistic evaluation of vendors, considering not only raw performance but associated risks uniquely related to the clinical deployment of AI. In-house experience and key bodies of work on ethics, standards, and best practices for AI in Radiation Oncology were reviewed to inform selection criteria and evaluation strategies. A retrospective analysis using the criteria was performed across six vendors, including a quantitative assessment using five metrics (Dice, Hausdorff Distance, Average Surface Distance, Surface Dice, Added Path Length) across 20 head and neck, 20 thoracic, and 19 male pelvis patients for AI models as of March 2023. A total of 47 selection criteria were identified across seven categories. A retrospective analysis showed that overall no vendor performed exceedingly well, with systematically poor performance in Data Security & Responsibility, Vendor Support Tools, and Transparency & Ethics. In terms of raw performance, vendors varied widely from excellent to poor. As new regulations come into force and the scope of AI auto-segmentation systems adapt to clinical needs, continued interest in ensuring safe, fair, and transparent AI will persist. The selection and evaluation framework provided herein aims to promote user confidence by exploring the breadth of clinically relevant factors to support informed decision-making.
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.