ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Automated Patient-specific Quality Assurance for Automated Segmentation of Organs at Risk in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Radiotherapy.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrecision radiotherapy relies on accurate segmentation of tumor targets and organs at risk (OARs). Clinicians manually review automatically delineated structures on a case-by-case basis, a time-consuming process dependent on reviewer experience and alertness. This study proposes a general process for automated threshold generation for structural evaluation indicators and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for automated segmentation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).
methodsThe patient-specific QA process for automated segmentation involves determining the confidence limit and error structure highlight stage. Three expert physicians segmented 17 OARs using computed tomography images of NPC and compared them using the Dice similarity coefficient, the maximum Hausdorff distance, and the mean distance to agreement. For each OAR, the 95% confidence interval was calculated as the confidence limit for each indicator. If two or more evaluation indicators (N2) or one or more evaluation indicators (N1) exceeded the confidence limits, the structure segmentation result was considered abnormal. The quantitative performances of these two methods were compared with those obtained by artificially introducing small/medium and serious errors.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and F-score values for N2 were 0.944 ± 0.052, 0.827 ± 0.149, 0.886 ± 0.076, and 0.936 ± 0.045, respectively, whereas those for N1 were 0.955 ± 0.045, 0.788 ± 0.189, 0.878 ± 0.096, and 0.948 ± 0.035, respectively. N2 and N1 had small/medium error detection rates of 97.67 ± 0.04% and 98.67 ± 0.04%, respectively, with a serious error detection rate of 100%.
conclusionThe proposed automated patient-specific QA process effectively detected segmentation abnormalities, particularly serious errors. These are crucial for enhancing review efficiency and automated segmentation, and for improving physician confidence in automated segmentation.
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.