ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Leveraging network uncertainty to identify regions in rectal cancer clinical target volume auto-segmentations likely requiring manual edits.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncertainty estimation for reliable neural network-based radiotherapy dose modelling using Monte Carlo dropout, mean variance estimation and deep ensemble.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Uncertainty quantification for artificial intelligence in medical imaging: what every radiologist needs to know.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Toward uncertainty-aware manual delineation of brain tumours using eye-tracking and image-derived features.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Automated deep learning segmentation and planning for left-sided breast radiotherapy with minimised adaptations based on dose, TCP and NTCP criteria.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- A dual-layer quality assurance approach leveraging dose prediction for efficient review of automated contours of organs at risk in the brain in radiotherapy.Physics and imaging 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.