Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40475847›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025

Leveraging network uncertainty to identify regions in rectal cancer clinical target volume auto-segmentations likely requiring manual edits.

Federica C Maruccio, Rita Simões, Joëlle E van Aalst, Charlotte L Brouwer, Jan-Jakob Sonke, Peter van Ooijen, Tomas M Janssen

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. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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.

Federica C MaruccioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Rita SimõesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Joëlle E van AalstUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Charlotte L BrouwerUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Jan-Jakob SonkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Peter van OoijenUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Tomas M JanssenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: While Deep Learning (DL) auto-segmentation has the potential to improve segmentation efficiency in the radiotherapy workflow, manual adjustments of the predictions are still required. Network uncertainty quantification has been proposed as a quality assurance tool to ensure an efficient segmentation workflow. However, the interpretation is often complicated due to various sources of uncertainty interacting non-trivially. In this work, we compared network predictions with both independent manual segmentations and manual corrections of the predictions. We assume that manual corrections only address clinically relevant errors and are therefore associated with lower aleatoric uncertainty due to less inter-observer variability. We expect the remaining epistemic uncertainty to be a better predictor of segmentation corrections. Materials and Methods: We considered DL auto-segmentations of the mesorectum clinical target volume. Uncertainty maps of nnU-Net outputs were generated using Monte Carlo dropout. On a global level, we investigated the correlation between mean network uncertainty and network segmentation performance. On a local level, we compared the uncertainty envelope width with the length of the error from both independent contours and corrected predictions. The uncertainty envelope widths were used to classify the error lengths as above or below a predefined threshold. Results: We achieved an AUC above 0.9 in identifying regions manually corrected with edits larger than 8 mm, while the AUC for inconsistencies with the independent contours was significantly lower at approximately 0.7. Conclusions: Our results validate the hypothesis that epistemic uncertainty estimates are a valuable tool to capture regions likely requiring clinically relevant edits.

Indexed as

Auto-segmentationEnvelope widthError lengthMonte Carlo dropoutUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID40475847
PMCPMC12140033

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.