ReviewPhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Evaluating deep learning auto-contouring for lung radiation therapy: A review of accuracy, variability, efficiency and dose, in target volumes and organs at risk.
Review in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- 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
- Fractal-driven self-supervised learning enhances early-stage lung cancer GTV segmentation: a novel transfer learning framework.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Monitoring lung tumour volume on daily cone beam CT; is it achievable in a real-world setting?Technical innovations & patient support in radiation 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Delineation of target volumes (TVs) and organs at risk (OARs) is a resource intensive process in lung radiation therapy and, despite the introduction of some auto-contouring, inter-observer variability remains a challenge. Deep learning algorithms may prove an efficient alternative and this review aims to map the evidence base on the use of deep learning algorithms for TV and OAR delineation in the radiation therapy planning process for lung cancer patients. Materials and methods: A literature search identified studies relating to deep learning. Manual contouring and deep learning auto-contours were evaluated against one another for accuracy, inter-observer variability, contouring time and dose-volume effects. A total of 40 studies were included for review. Results: Thirty nine out of 40 studies investigated the accuracy of deep learning auto-contours and determined that they were of a comparable accuracy to manual contours. Inter-observer variability outcomes were heterogeneous in the seven relevant studies identified. Twenty-four studies analysed the time saving associated with deep learning auto-contours and reported a significant time reduction in comparison to manual contours. The eight studies that conducted a dose-volume metric evaluation on deep learning auto-contours identified negligible effect on treatment plans. Conclusion: The accuracy and time-saving capacity of deep learning auto-contours in comparison to manual contours has been extensively studied. However, additional research is required in the areas of inter-observer variability and dose-volume metric evaluation to further substantiate its clinical use.
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.