ArticleCureus2025
Proposal for a Method for Assessing the Quality of an Updated Deep Learning-Based Automatic Segmentation Program.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
This study aimed to verify whether a commercial deep learning-based automatic segmentation (DLS) method can maintain contour geometric accuracy post-update and to propose a streamlined validation method that minimizes the burden on clinical workflows. This study included 109 participants. Radiation oncologists used computed tomography (CT) imaging to identify 28 organs located in the head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvic regions. Contours were delineated on CT images using AI-Rad Companion Organs RT (AIRC; Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) versions VA30, VA50, and VA50. The Dice similarity coefficient, maximum Hausdorff distance, and mean distance to agreement were calculated to identify contours with significant differences among versions. To evaluate the identified contours, the ground truth was defined as the contour delineated by radiation oncologists, and the geometric indices for VA30, VA50, and VA60 were recalculated. Statistical analysis was performed on the geometric indices to verify differences between each version. Among the 28 contours evaluated, nine organs did not satisfy the established criteria. Statistical analysis revealed that the brain, rectum, and bladder contours differed substantially across AIRC versions. In particular, the pre-update rectum contour had a mean (range) Hausdorff distance of 0.76 (0.40-1.16), whereas the post-update rectum contour exhibited lower quality, with a Hausdorff distance of 1.13 (0.24-5.68). Therefore, commercial DLS methods that undergo regular updates must be reassessed for quality in each region of interest. The proposed method can help reduce the burden on clinical workflows while appropriately evaluating post-update DLS performance.
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.