ArticleEJNMMI research2026
Non-inferiority of automated deep learning-based [
Article in EJNMMI research, 2026. 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.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManual segmentation of gross tumour volumes (GTV) on [18F]FDG PET/CT is time-consuming and subject to interobserver variability, limiting its scalability for prognostic modelling in head and neck cancer. We investigated whether deep learning-based PET tumour volumes (AI-PET-GTV) could replace manually defined GTVs in risk prediction models for loco-regional failure (LRF) and distant metastasis (DM).
resultsUsing competing risk regression, we tested whether AI-PET-GTV was non-inferior to manual GTV in predicting LRF, with the primary outcome being area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) at 3 years, using a non-inferiority margin of 5 percentage points. AI-PET-GTV achieved a 3-year AUC of 72.9% (95% CI: 67.9–77.9%) compared to 72.8% (95% CI: 67.8–77.9%) for manual GTV (p = 0.02). At 1 year, AUCs were 77.3% (95% CI: 72.2–82.4%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 71.9–82.0%) for AI and manual GTV, respectively (p = 0.02). Similar patterns were observed for DM prediction at 1 and 3 years (all p < 0.01), and Brier scores also favoured AI-PET-GTV at both timepoints (p < 0.02). Stratification based on predicted risk yielded nearly identical cumulative incidence estimates. For example, the 3-year cumulative incidence of LRF in the high-risk group was 38.4% (95% CI: 32.6–44.2%) for both models.
conclusionsAutomated deep learning-based PET tumour volumes are non-inferior to manual GTVs for prognostic modelling of LRF and DM in head and neck cancer. These findings support clinical implementation of AI-derived volumes for reproducible, scalable, and earlier risk stratification in oncology 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.