ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
A semi-automated workflow for cohort-wise preparation of radiotherapy data for dose-response modeling, including autosegmentation of organs at risk.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- A semi-automated workflow for cohort-wise preparation of radiotherapy data for dose-response modeling, including autosegmentation of organs at risk.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreparing retrospective dose data for risk modeling using large study cohorts can be time consuming as it often requires patient-wise manual interventions. This is especially the case when considering organs at risk (OARs) not systematically delineated historically. Therefore, we aimed to develop and test a semi-automated workflow for cohort-wise preparation of radiotherapy data from the oncology information system (OIS), including OAR autosegmentation, for risk modeling purposes.
methodsA semi-automated workflow, including cohort-wise data extraction from a clinical OIS, cleanup, autosegmentation, quality controls (QCs), and data injection into a research OIS was iteratively developed using 106 patient cases. We evaluated two deep learning (DL)-based methods and compared with four atlas-based methods for autosegmentation of the proximal bronchial tree (PBT), the heart, and the esophagus that were possible to integrate into the workflow. One method was an in-house DL-based model using OARs manually contoured by experts for 100 cases. Geometric and dosimetric agreements with manually contoured OARs were evaluated for 20 independent cases. The final workflow was tested on 50 independent cases.
resultsThe DL-based methods were better than the atlas-based at segmenting the PBT (mean Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) 0.81-0.83 versus 0.59-0.80) and the esophagus (mean DSC 0.76-0.77 versus 0.39-0.46). The methods performed similarly for the heart (mean DSC 0.90-0.95 (DL-based) and 0.84-0.90 (atlas-based)). Our in-house autosegmentation model had the highest mean DSC for all OARs. The final version of the workflow successfully prepared data for 80% of the test cases without case-specific manual interventions.
conclusionsThe semi-automated workflow enabled efficient cohort-wise preparation of OIS data for risk modeling purposes. Our in-house DL-based segmentation model outperformed the other methods.
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.