ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
A method for sensitivity analysis of automatic contouring algorithms across different contrast weightings using synthetic magnetic resonance imaging.
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 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and purpose: A majority of institution-specific automatic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based contouring algorithms utilize one contrast-weighting (i.e., T2-weighted), however their performance within this contrast-weighting (i.e., across different repetition time, TR, and echo time, TE) is under-investigated and poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to develop a method to evaluate the robustness of automatic contouring algorithms to varying MRI contrast-weightings. Materials and methods: One healthy volunteer and one patient were scanned using the multi-delay multi-echo (MDME) scan on a 3T MRI. The parotid and submandibular glands in these subjects were contoured using an automatic contouring algorithm trained on T2-weighted MRIs. Ground truth consensus contours were created by two radiation oncology residents and one pre-resident physician. A total of 216 different TR and TE combinations were simulated across T1-, T2-, and PD-weighted contrast ranges using SyMRI. Comparisons between automatic contouring algorithm contours and the ground truth were determined using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95) with interobserver variability used as a threshold for clinical acceptance. Results: Differences in the automatic contouring model's performance were seen across the contrast-weighted regions. The range of discrepancy in DSC and HD95 exceeded 0.2 and 3.66 mm, respectively. In the T2-weighted contrast region, 100 %, 40 %, 24 %, and 57 % for the DSC in the left parotid, right parotid, left submandibular, and right submandibular gland, respectively, exceeded interobserver variability. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the variable performance of MRI-based automatic contouring algorithms across varying TR and TE combinations even within the same contrast-weighting region (i.e., T2-weighted).
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.