ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
User-preference alignment with uncertainty-aware interactive rectification for liver organ and tumor segmentation and analysis from CT images.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate liver and tumor segmentation from CT images is essential for cancer diagnosis, treatment planning, and response assessment. However, manual segmentation is labor-intensive and variable, while standard automated models lack the flexibility to adapt to diverse clinical needs or inherent image uncertainties. To bridge this gap, we introduce User-Preference Alignment with Uncertainty-Aware Interactive Rectification (UAIR), a novel framework designed for efficient and adaptive segmentation. Instead of requiring laborious pixel-level corrections, UAIR presents the clinician with a small, curated set of diverse segmentation candidates generated by quantifying model uncertainty. The user simply selects the most suitable option, allowing the framework to iteratively refine its results and align with specific clinical preferences. This selection-based approach drastically reduces the human interaction cost. We validated UAIR on a large-scale, multi-center CT dataset, demonstrating superior accuracy (DSC 0.776) over existing manual positional prompting (DSC 0.685) and less prompting efforts. UAIR provides a clinically-viable solution that integrates seamless human guidance, enabling rapid and robust segmentation for downstream quantitative analysis.
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.