ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of a deep reinforcement learning algorithm for auto-delineation of organs at risk in cervical cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liver transplant donor-recipient matching with offline reinforcement learning.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Recent advancements in the application of artificial intelligence-based approaches for screening, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cervical cancer.Oncology reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was conducted to develop and validate a novel deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm incorporating the segment anything model (SAM) to enhance the accuracy of automatic contouring organs at risk during radiotherapy for cervical cancer patients. CT images were collected from 150 cervical cancer patients treated at our hospital between 2021 and 2023. Among these images, 122 CT images were used as a training set for the algorithm training of the DRL model based on the SAM model, and 28 CT images were used for the test set. The model's performance was evaluated by comparing its segmentation results with the ground truth (manual contouring) obtained through manual contouring by expert clinicians. The test results were compared with the contouring results of commercial automatic contouring software based on the deep learning (DL) algorithm model. The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), 95th percentile Hausdorff distance, average symmetric surface distance (ASSD), and relative absolute volume difference (RAVD) were used to quantitatively assess the contouring accuracy from different perspectives, enabling the contouring results to be comprehensively and objectively evaluated. The DRL model outperformed the DL model across all evaluated metrics. DRL achieved higher median DSC values, such as 0.97 versus 0.96 for the left kidney (P < 0.001), and demonstrated better boundary accuracy with lower HD95 values, e.g., 14.30 mm versus 17.24 mm for the rectum (P < 0.001). Moreover, DRL exhibited superior spatial agreement (median ASSD: 1.55 mm vs. 1.80 mm for the rectum, P < 0.001) and volume prediction accuracy (median RAVD: 10.25 vs. 10.64 for the duodenum, P < 0.001). These findings indicate that integrating SAM with RL (reinforcement learning) enhances segmentation accuracy and consistency compared to conventional DL methods. The proposed approach introduces a novel training strategy that improves performance without increasing model complexity, demonstrating its potential applicability in clinical practice.
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.