Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740950›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026

Uncertainty estimation for reliable neural network-based radiotherapy dose modelling using Monte Carlo dropout, mean variance estimation and deep ensemble.

Moritz Schneider, Tabea Eberhardt, Cihan Gani, Paul Fischer, Christian F Baumgartner, Daniela Thorwarth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Moritz SchneiderSection for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Tabea EberhardtSection for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Cihan GaniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Paul FischerCluster of Excellence "Machine Learning: New Perspectives for Science", University of Tübingen, Germany.
Christian F BaumgartnerCluster of Excellence "Machine Learning: New Perspectives for Science", University of Tübingen, Germany.
Daniela ThorwarthSection for Biomedical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Neural networks promise fast dose modelling with high accuracy for challenging situations like magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiotherapy. As they are data-driven, failure can occur and early identification of erroneous dose calculations is required.In this study, we implemented and evaluated three uncertainty estimation techniques to assess whether they can indicate increased prediction error. Materials and methods: Using a dataset of 6713 radiotherapy segments from 130 1.5 T MRI linear accelerator plans and a 3D UNet for dose modelling, three techniques were implemented to assess uncertainty: Monte Carlo dropout (MCD), mean variance estimation (MVE) and a deep ensemble (DE).All methods were evaluated regarding calibration using the expected normalized calibration error (ENCE) and correlation to mean absolute error (MAE).Cumulative failure rates were calculated across uncertainty thresholds, with a 3 mm/3% gamma passing rate < 95% defining failure. Results: After calibration, all three methods showed ENCE values of 0.14/0.05/0.10 for MCD/MVE/DE. A strong relationship between mean uncertainty and MAE was observed, reflected by high Spearman correlation coefficients (MCD: ρ = 0.64, MVE: ρ = 0.76, DE: ρ = 0.67).Failure rates increased with mean uncertainty across all methods, enabling thresholds targeting a 10% failure rate. On independent evaluation, 44%-77% of segments were accepted, with observed failure rates among accepted segments of 7.2%-9.5%. Conclusions: All methods provided meaningful uncertainty estimates clearly associated with prediction error. MVE showed the lowest ENCE and strongest correlation with MAE while requiring the least computation. DE most closely matched the target failure rate while flagging the fewest segments.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningDose calculationDose modellingMRgRTRadiotherapyUncertainty estimation

Identifiers

PMID42740950
PMCPMC13572023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.