ArticleMedical physics2026
Context-informed personalized segmentation from radiology reports: A fully automated framework for long-term liver tumor follow-up.
Article in 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePersonalized segmentation has been shown to improve performance over generalized models in follow-up imaging; however, its robustness across large temporal gaps remains unclear. We propose a fully automated, context-informed personalization framework that integrates radiology report-derived clinical context with imaging features to improve longitudinal liver tumor segmentation.
methodsThis retrospective study included 171 patients for generalized model training and 41 longitudinal patients with follow-up CT scans acquired 3-15 months after baseline for personalization and evaluation. We developed a U-Net-based vision-language segmentation framework that automatically summarizes free-text radiology reports, encodes them into language embeddings, and integrates them into intermediate image features to provide clinical context. A generalized model was trained using paired CT-report data. For each longitudinal patient, personalization was performed at the 3-month follow-up using either image-only input (vision-only personalization) or paired image-report input (context-informed personalization). Models were then evaluated on subsequent 6-15-month follow-up scans without further adaptation. Patients were stratified into Stable and Dynamic cohorts based on relative GTV volume variability. Performance was assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and LogPenalty Score (LPS), with additional ablation studies examining language models and report components.
resultsIn the Dynamic cohort, vision-only personalization exhibited diminishing gains at later follow-up, whereas context-informed personalization maintained statistically significant improvements in ΔLPS at 9-15 months (p < 0.05). In the Stable cohort, both personalization strategies showed sustained performance with comparable segmentation accuracy, indicating that incorporating report-derived clinical context did not degrade performance in cases with limited anatomical variability. Ablation studies demonstrated that domain-specific encoder-based language models (BioClinicalBERT) outperformed larger generative models and that effective context integration did not require complex architectural modifications.
conclusionIncorporating report-derived clinical context improves the longitudinal robustness of personalized liver tumor segmentation, particularly in patients with dynamic tumor evolution. These findings suggest that clinically grounded language representations can stabilize personalization across extended follow-up while enabling fully automated and scalable deployment.
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.