ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2025
Inter-Observer variability in organs at risk contouring among radiation therapy students and qualified radiation therapists.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal deep learning to support delineation of neuro-oncology organs based on the EPTN international neurological contouring atlas.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Interobserver Variation Within Planning Target Volume and Organs at Risk in a Patient with Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: A Contouring Study with Anatomical Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Contouring organ-at-risk structures (OARs) remains an important skill that must be developed through education and training. This study assessed variations in OAR contouring among undergraduate radiation therapy students and qualified radiation therapists (RTs). Methods: Four planning computed tomography datasets (Brain, Lung, Parotid, and Prostate), which included 21 clinician-validated OAR contours, were utilised as references in this contouring study. Participants included 2nd to 4th year students, as well as qualified RTs. A quantitative comparison of contours was performed using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DICE) and Hausdorff distance (HD) metrics. Statistical analyses assessed variations across structures, tumour sites, experience levels, and contouring methods. Results: A total of 440 OAR contours were analysed. The bladder and lung OARs achieved the highest mean DICE scores (>0.9), while structures such as the brainstem, heart, and parotid gland exhibited mean DICE scores between 0.76 and 0.89. Smaller structures, such as the lens, demonstrated very low HD95 values. A moderate positive correlation (r = 0.591) was observed between OAR volume and DICE scores (<200 cc). Statistical analyses indicated significant differences across tumour sites (P < 0.001 for DICE, HDavg, HD95, and HDmax). The comparison of manual and guided contouring showed statistically significant differences only for DICE (P < 0.001) and HDmax (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in median scores between students and qualified groups. However, students exhibited higher variance than qualified professionals. Conclusion: This study highlighted OARs that are challenging to contour or edit, suggesting the need for a comprehensive educational framework.
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.