Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39804550›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025

Guidance on selecting and evaluating AI auto-segmentation systems in clinical radiotherapy: insights from a six-vendor analysis.

Branimir Rusanov, Martin A Ebert, Mahsheed Sabet, Pejman Rowshanfarzad, Nathaniel Barry, Jake Kendrick, Zaid Alkhatib, Suki Gill, Joshua Dass, Nicholas Bucknell and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Quantifying manual editing time in autocontouring via audit log analysis.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Branimir RusanovSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. branimir.rusanov@research.uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3804-5111
Martin A EbertSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Mahsheed SabetSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Pejman RowshanfarzadSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Nathaniel BarrySchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Jake KendrickSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Zaid AlkhatibDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Suki GillDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Joshua DassDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Nicholas BucknellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Jeremy CrokerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Colin TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Rohen WhiteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Sean BydderDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Mandy TaylorDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Luke SlamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Godfrey MukwadaSchool of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.

Funding

Australian Government 1208
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceCommerceRadiotherapyAutomationHumansRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceAutomatic segmentationClinical evaluationRadiotherapyRecommendationsSelection criteria

Identifiers

PMID39804550
PMCPMC11997002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.