ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Deep learning-based delineation of whole-body organs at risk empowering adaptive radiotherapy.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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 prospective multicenter trial of deep learning auto-segmentation for organs at risk in thoracic radiotherapy.Nature communications · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate delineation of organs at risk (OARs) is crucial for precision radiotherapy. Most previous autosegmentation models were only constructed for single anatomical region without evaluation of dosimetric impact. We aimed to validate the clinical practicability of deep-learning (DL) models for autosegmentation of whole-body OARs with respect to delineation accuracy, clinical acceptance and dosimetric impact.
methodsOARs in various anatomical regions, including the head and neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis, were automatedly delineated by DL models (DLD) and compared to manual delineations (MD) by an experienced radiation oncologist (RO). The geometric performance was evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and average surface distance (ASD). RO A corrected DLD to create delineations approved in clinical practice (CPD). RO B graded the accuracy of DLD to assess clinical acceptance. The dosimetric impact was determined by assessing the difference in dosimetric parameters for each OAR in the DLD-based radiotherapy plan (Plan_DLD) and the CPD-based radiotherapy plan (Plan_CPD).
resultsThe automatic delineation model has a high OAR delineation accuracy, and the median DSCs can reach 0.841 (IQR, 0.791-0.867) in the head and neck OAR, 0.903 (IQR, 0.777-0.932) in thoracic OAR, 0.847 (IQR, 0.834-0.931) in abdominal OAR, 0.916 (IQR, 0.906-0.964) in pelvic OAR. The majority of DL-generated OARs were graded as clinically acceptable with no editing or little editing needed. No significant differences in dosimetric parameters were found by comparing Plan_DLD with Plan_CPD.
conclusionsFor OARs of whole bodily regions, DL-based segmentation is fast; DL models perform sufficiently well for clinical practice with respect to delineation accuracy, clinical accepatance and dosimetric impact.
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.