Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40129727›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

External validation of an algorithm to detect vertebral level mislabeling and autocontouring errors.

Tucker J Netherton, Didier Duprez, Tina Patel, Gizem Cifter, Laurence E Court, Christoph Trauernicht, Ajay Aggarwal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Tucker J NethertonDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Didier DuprezDivision of Medical Physics, Tygerberg Hospital and Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Tina PatelDepartment of Radiotherapy Guy's & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust London, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Gizem CifterDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States.
Christoph TrauernichtDivision of Medical Physics, Tygerberg Hospital and Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Ajay AggarwalDepartment of Radiotherapy Guy's & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust London, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: This work performs external validation of a previously developed vertebral body autocontouring tool and investigates a post-processing method to increase performance to clinically acceptable levels. Materials and Methods: Vertebral bodies within CT scans from two separate institutions (40 from institution A and 41 from institution B) were automatically 1) localized and enumerated, 2) contoured, and 3) screened as a means of quality assurance (QA) for errors. Identification rate, contour acceptability rate, and QA accuracy were calculated to assess the tool's performance. These metrics were compared to those calculated on CTs from the model's original training dataset, and a post-processing technique was developed to increase the tool's accuracy. Results: When testing the model without post-processing on external datasets A and B, accurate identification rates of 83 % and 92 % were achieved for vertebral bodies (C1-L5). Identification rate, contour acceptability rate and QA accuracy were reduced on both datasets compared to accuracies and rates measured on the model's orginal testing dataset. After algorithm adjustment, identification rate across all vertebrae increased on average by 4 % (p < 0.01) for dataset A and also 4 % on the dataset B (p = 0.01). Conclusions: A post-processing adjustment within the machine learning pipeline increased performance of vertebral body localization accuracy to acceptable levels for clinical use. External validation of machine learning and deep learning tools is essential to perform before deployment to different insitutions.

Indexed as

Computed tomographyExternal validation of machine learning toolsImage segmentationVertebral body segmentationVertebral level labeling

Identifiers

PMID40129727
PMCPMC11932639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.