ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
AI-ready rectal cancer MR imaging: a workflow for tumor detection and segmentation.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for rectal cancer: is it time to reassess the gold standard?Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Preparing clinical research data for artificial intelligence readiness: insights from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases data centric challenge.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Article
- Deep learning analysis of MRI to assess rectal cancer treatment.Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMagnetic Resonance (MR) imaging is the preferred modality for staging in rectal cancer; however, despite its exceptional soft tissue contrast, segmenting rectal tumors on MR images remains challenging due to the overlapping appearance of tumor and normal tissues, variability in imaging parameters, and the inherent subjectivity of reader interpretation. For studies requiring accurate segmentation, reviews by multiple independent radiologists remain the gold standard, albeit at a substantial cost. The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers promising solutions to semi- or fully-automatic segmentation, but the lack of publicly available, high-quality MR imaging datasets for rectal cancer remains a significant barrier to developing robust AI models.
objectiveThis study aimed to foster collaboration between a radiologist and two data scientists in the detection and segmentation of rectal tumors on T2- and diffusion-weighted MR images. By combining the radiologist's clinical expertise with the data scientists' imaging analysis skills, we sought to establish a foundation for future AI-driven approaches that streamline rectal tumor detection and segmentation, and optimize workflow efficiency.
methodsA total of 37 patients with rectal cancer were included in this study. Through radiologist-led training, attendance at Stanford's weekly Colorectal Cancer Multidisciplinary Tumor Board (CRC MDTB), and the use of radiologist annotations and clinical notes in Epic Electronic Health Records (EHR), data scientists learned how to detect and manually segment tumors on T2- and diffusion-weighted pre-treatment MR images. These segmentations were then reviewed and edited by a radiologist. The accuracy of the segmentations was evaluated using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Jaccard Index (JI), quantifying the overlap between the segmentations delineated by the data scientists and those edited by the radiologist.
resultsWith the help of radiologist annotations and radiology notes in Epic EHR, the data scientists successfully identified rectal tumors in Slicer v5.7.0 across all evaluated T2- and diffusion-weighted MR images. Through radiologist-led training and participation at Stanford's weekly CRC MDTB, the data scientists' rectal tumor segmentations exhibited strong agreement with the radiologist's edits, achieving a mean DSC [95% CI] of 0.965 [0.939-0.992] and a mean JI [95% CI] of 0.943 [0.900, 0.985]. Discrepancies in segmentations were attributed to over- or under-segmentation, often incorporating surrounding structures such as the rectal wall and lumen.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the feasibility of generating high-quality labeled MR datasets through collaboration between a radiologist and two data scientists, which is essential for training AI models to automate tumor detection and segmentation in rectal cancer. By integrating expertise from radiology and data science, this approach has the potential to enhance AI model performance and transform clinical workflows in the future.
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.