ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Assessing the robustness and clinical evaluation of a deep-learning segmentation model for head and neck cancer.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Deep learning (DL)-based autosegmentation has improved delineation of organs at risk in radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC). However, automated segmentation of gross tumor volumes (GTVp, GTVn) remains challenging, and robustness under real-world imaging conditions is insufficiently characterized. This study evaluates the robustness and clinical usability of a DL-based PET/CT segmentation model for HNC under clinically relevant perturbations. Materials and methods: A 3D Dynamic U-Net was trained on the public HECKTOR 2022 dataset (474 training, 50 test cases). Synthetic perturbations (noise, blur, ghosting, bias-field, spike noise, and motion) were applied to PET and CT images at varying severity levels, generating 36 variants per patient. Segmentation quality was measured using Dice score, Hausdorff Distance, and accuracy. Clinical usability was assessed for 50 baseline and 18 perturbed cases by two clinicians using a five-point Likert scale. Radiomic features were correlated with robustness metrics. Results: Baseline Dice scores were 0.766 (GTVp) and 0.698 (GTVn). Performance dropped significantly under spike noise and bias-field artifacts, especially for GTVn. Clinical usability remained high for GTVp (77.8%) but declined to 27.9% for GTVn under severe perturbations. Lesion volume and surface complexity positively correlated with robustness degradation, while high PET contrast offered protective effects against certain perturbations. Conclusion: DL-based PET/CT segmentation models for HNC show strong baseline performance and robustness for primary tumors. However, nodal tumor segmentation remains vulnerable to specific image artifacts. Enhancing robustness through targeted data augmentation and validation under variable conditions is essential for clinical integration.
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.