ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
An evaluation of uncertainty quantification methods and measures for deep learning outcome prediction models in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Deep learning (DL) outcome prediction models show promise in radiotherapy but face limited clinical adoption due to concerns about prediction reliability. Although uncertainty quantification (UQ) can provide confidence estimates alongside predictions, there is currently little consensus on appropriate UQ approaches for DL-based outcome prediction. This study therefore evaluates and compares different UQ approaches for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and tumour control probability (TCP) models in head and neck cancer. Materials and Methods: Four published DL models were reproduced: two NTCP models predicting xerostomia and dysphagia at six months post-treatment, and two TCP models predicting two-year survival and locoregional control. Three UQ methods-Monte Carlo dropout, deep ensembles, and test-time augmentation-and three uncertainty measures-predictive entropy, variance, and mutual information-were evaluated. Models were retrained on development sets (NTCP: 964 patients, TCP: 255 patients), and assessed on independent validation sets (NTCP: 241 patients, TCP: 85 patients) using discriminative performance, calibration metrics, and sparsification analysis. Results: Incorporating UQ methods maintained comparable discriminative performance to baseline models across all endpoints (mean AUC: 0.72-0.73 vs 0.72). Deep ensembles and Monte Carlo dropout demonstrated strong calibration between uncertainty values and prediction accuracy, while test-time augmentation showed variable reliability. Entropy and variance consistently correlated with prediction accuracy, whereas mutual information proved unstable. Conclusions: Monte Carlo dropout and deep ensembles provide meaningful uncertainty estimates for NTCP and TCP prediction without compromising model performance. These methods show potential for selective prediction workflows where high-confidence predictions guide treatment decisions while uncertain cases are flagged.
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.