ArticleIntelligent oncology2025
Assessing Quantitative Performance and Expert Review of Multiple Deep Learning-Based Frameworks for Computed Tomography-based Abdominal Organ Auto-Segmentation.
Article in Intelligent oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in biomarkers of benzene exposure and toxicity: From mechanistic insights to occupational health applications (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Integrative Machine Learning Framework Revealing TRPM4-Associated Signatures and Identifying SPATA6 as a Potential Biomarker in Prostate Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2026Article
- The impact of pre-processing techniques on deep learning breast image segmentation.Scientific reports · 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
Background: Segmentation of abdominal organs in computed tomography (CT) images within clinical oncological workflows is crucial for ensuring effective treatment planning and follow-up. However, manually generated segmentations are time-consuming and labor-intensive in addition to being subject to inter-observer variability. Many deep learning (DL) and Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) frameworks have emerged as a solution to this challenge and show promise in clinical workflows. Objective: This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of existing AutoML frameworks (Auto3DSeg, nnU-Net) against a state-of-the-art non-AutoML framework, the Shifted Window U-Net Transformer (SwinUNETR). Methods: Each framework was trained on the same 122 training images, taken from the Abdominal Multi-Organ Segmentation (AMOS) grand challenge. Frameworks were compared using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Surface DSC (sDSC), and 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distances (HD95) on an additional 72 holdout-validation images. The perceived clinical viability of 30 auto-contoured test cases was assessed by three physicians in a blinded evaluation. Results: Comparisons show significantly better performance by AutoML methods. nnU-Net (average DSC: 0.924, average sDSC: 0.938, average HD95: 4.26, median Likert: 4.57), Auto3DSeg (average DSC: 0.902, average sDSC: 0.919, average HD95: 8.76, median Likert: 4.49), and SwinUNETR (average DSC: 0.837, average sDSC: 0.844, average HD95: 13.93). AutoML frameworks were quantitatively preferred (13/13 OARs Conclusion: The findings suggest that AutoML frameworks offer a significant advantage in the segmentation of abdominal organs, and underscores the potential of AutoML methods to enhance the efficiency of oncological workflows.
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.