ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Evaluation of AI-based segmentation and synthetic CT generation for MRI-only prostate radiotherapy planning.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for segmentation of target volumes and organs at risk due to superior soft tissue contrast compared to computed tomography (CT). Conventional workflows require CT-MRI registration, introducing geometric uncertainty that can propagate to dose delivery. MRI-only radiotherapy, based on AI-generated synthetic CT (sCT) and segmentations from T2-weighted images, offers a single-modality approach, potentially eliminating registration errors. PURPOSE: Our study aims to evaluate whether an MRI-only workflow, using commercial AI models for segmentation and sCT generation (MVision), demonstrates performance comparable to expert-defined segmentations and reference CT-based calculations within the studied dataset.
methodsWe analyzed five segmentations on 19 male pelvis patients from the Gold Atlas dataset, providing deformably co-registered CT and MRI, sCTs, with multi-observer and consensus segmentations. We investigated segmentation accuracy, image similarity, and evaluated the dosimetric impact by comparing AI- to manual segmentations and CTs to sCTs. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for statistical significance and leave-one-out kappa determined segmentation outliers.
resultsResults show that AI-segmentations achieved accuracy comparable to interobserver variability across all organs. Median Dice coefficients exceeded 0.9 for the prostate and bladder, and distance metrics closely matched the manual results. The leave-one-out kappa showed that AI-segmentations were indistinguishable from manual observers for all organs. sCTs showed high similarity to the reference CTs, with a median mean absolute error of 34.0 HU and median structural similarity index of 0.93. Dose recalculations showed excellent agreement; median 3D-gamma pass rate was 99.8% (2%/2 mm), and mean absolute dose difference was 0.036 Gy. All evaluated clinical dose constraints remained fulfilled after recalculation on the sCT.
conclusionsOur results confirm that an AI-segmentation and MRI-sCT workflow provides geometric, image, and dose accuracy comparable to manual- and CT-based references, supporting their integration into clinical workflows for pelvic radiotherapy.
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.