ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
A dual-layer quality assurance approach leveraging dose prediction for efficient review of automated contours of organs at risk in the brain in radiotherapy.
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.
- Assessing the robustness and clinical evaluation of a deep-learning segmentation model for head and neck cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Despite widespread adaptation of automatic segmentation (AS), manual review and adjustment of generated contours are still essential. This process is time-consuming and identifying clinically relevant corrections remains challenging. Inter-observer variability and the risk of overlooking significant errors further complicate the workflow. A dedicated quality assurance tool is highly relevant to assure quality and speed up the manual review task. The primary aim of this work is to identify critical segmentation errors while reducing unnecessary manual review, enabling efficient integration of AS into routine radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: We developed an evaluation assistant that assesses contour quality through the geometric measures Dice similarity coefficient and the Hausdorff distance. This was combined with a dose prediction model to determine the clinical relevance. The system was validated on 30 glioblastoma cases with ground truth and manually modified organ at risk (OAR) contours. A traffic light decision matrix classified contours based on geometric and dose parameters, flagging structures for human review. Results: Out of 507 analyzed OARs, 180 were classified as critical. Our approach identified 173 of these critical structures (sensitivity: 0.96, specificity: 0.55). The system flagged 317 organs (61%) as critical, effectively ruling out 39% as non-critical with only 7 false negatives comprising structures. Conclusions: Our dual-layer QA approach effectively identifies critical OAR segmentations with high sensitivity and acceptable specificity, potentially reducing manual review requirements significantly. By focusing on clinically relevant dose/volume metric endpoints, this method assures the quality of brain AS results in clinical radiotherapy practice.
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.