ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2026
Improving confidence in MRI-based auto-segmentation via uncertainty assessment.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical physics in the Nordic countries: collaboration and future challenges - report from the Nordic Association for Clinical Physics 2026 Symposium.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Multimodal deep learning to support delineation of neuro-oncology organs based on the EPTN international neurological contouring atlas.Physics and imaging in radiation 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAccurate delineation of organs of interest (OOIs, also commonly referred to as organs at risk, OARs) is crucial for safe radiotherapy. While deep learning-based segmentation using convolutional neural networks has achieved high geometric accuracy, clinical translation is hindered by overconfident, uncalibrated predictions in anatomically ambiguous regions. Uncertainty quantification and model calibration are prerequisites for safe clinical workflows. This study compared the standard nnU-Netv2 against its residual-encoding variant (ResEncM), hypothesizing that ResEncM would demonstrate superior reliability and calibration while maintaining comparable geometric accuracy. Patient/material and methods: T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI scans from 70 brain cancer patients were used (55 training/validation, 15 testing). Ground-truth contours for brainstem, hippocampi, chiasm, optic nerves, optic tracts, and pituitary were delineated per Danish Neuro Oncology Group guidelines. Both architectures were trained using five-fold cross-validation with identical preprocessing. Epistemic uncertainty was quantified using mutual information, and Expected Calibration Error (ECE) was computed within a 10-mm isotropic margin around reference contours.
resultsBoth models achieved high geometric accuracy (brainstem dice similarity coefficient [DSC] > 0.93, hippocampi DSC > 0.81). No significant geometric differences were found for large structures. ResEncM showed significantly lower DSC for the pituitary (p = 0.003) and chiasm (p = 0.018). However, ResEncM demonstrated significantly lower epistemic uncertainty and ensemble variance across all structures (p < 0.05), and significantly reduced ECE for the optic chiasm, optic tracts, and pituitary.
interpretationIntegrating a deep residual encoder into the standard U-Net framework significantly improves reliability and calibration of automated brain OOI contours while maintaining strong geometric performance. The ResEncM architecture provides a more trustworthy tool for clinical radiotherapy by reliably flagging high-uncertainty voxels, supporting confidence-aware clinical 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.