ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Automated annotation error detection and correction for manual two-dimensional cinematic magnetic resonance imaging segmentations using segment anything 2.
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. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performance of deep learning-based models for tumour tracking in magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy hinges on high-quality labelled data. Medical images are prone to annotation errors, making data cleaning essential. We propose an automatic data cleaning tool based on the foundation model Segment Anything 2, which incorporates temporal information from cinematic magnetic resonance imaging to detect annotation errors and generate corrected contours, minimising manual effort involved in data cleaning. Expert validation by two radiation oncologists showed a preference for corrected contours over the original manual contours. Corrected contours (DSC 0.95 ± 0.01) surpassed interobserver variability (0.88 ± 0.02) on a dataset annotated by five observers.
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.