ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Comparison of Auto-Contouring Tools for Delineation of Normal Organs at Risk in Paediatric Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of Auto-Contouring Tools for Delineation of Normal Organs at Risk in Paediatric Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
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
introductionContouring organs at risk (OARs) manually in paediatric patients undergoing cranial-spinal radiation therapy (CSI) is a time-consuming, labour-intensive task. This study aims to assess the accuracy and clinical acceptability of auto-contours produced by the Siemens DirectORGANS auto-contouring software on paediatric patients receiving CSI treatment.
methodsAuto-contours of OARs were produced using the Siemens DirectORGANS Auto-contouring Software from 20 paediatric CSI patients datasets that had previously been manually contoured by a paediatric specialist radiation therapist (RT) for plan production. Manual and auto-contours were retrospectively analysed using quantitative (Dice Similarity Coefficient, Hausdorff Distance, Mean Distance to Agreement) and qualitative (Likert ratings, Turing test) assessment techniques.
resultsAuto-contoured structures were clinically acceptable for use without edits 72.8% of the time, and manual contours were clinically acceptable for use 91.7% of the time. The liver was the only auto-contoured structure that performed better than the manual equivalent. Poor performance by the auto contouring tool was noted for structures surrounded by low contrast edges, such as the breasts, oesophagus, and brainstem, in both quantitative and qualitative assessment techniques. Brain auto-contours were deemed not suitable for clinical use.
conclusionThe clinical acceptability of many of the auto-contours favours the implementation of this auto-contouring system for clinical use. However, prior to use, all contours should be critically assessed and edited accordingly. Our study results indicate that whilst auto-contouring tools are designed for adult populations, they are suitable for use on paediatric patients when used with caution.
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.