ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
External validation of an algorithm to detect vertebral level mislabeling and autocontouring errors.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
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
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.