↓ Skip to main content

Automated Quality Assurance of OAR Contouring for Lung Cancer Based on Segmentation With Deep Active Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, July 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Automated Quality Assurance of OAR Contouring for Lung Cancer Based on Segmentation With Deep Active Learning
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, July 2020
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2020.00986
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kuo Men, Huaizhi Geng, Tithi Biswas, Zhongxing Liao, Ying Xiao

Abstract

Purpose: Ensuring high-quality data for clinical trials in radiotherapy requires the generation of contours that comply with protocol definitions. The current workflow includes a manual review of the submitted contours, which is time-consuming and subjective. In this study, we developed an automated quality assurance (QA) system for lung cancer based on a segmentation model trained with deep active learning. Methods: The data included a gold atlas with 36 cases and 110 cases from the "NRG Oncology/RTOG 1308 Trial". The first 70 cases enrolled to the RTOG 1308 formed the candidate set, and the remaining 40 cases were randomly assigned to validation and test sets (each with 20 cases). The organs-at-risk included the heart, esophagus, spinal cord, and lungs. A preliminary convolutional neural network segmentation model was trained with the gold standard atlas. To address the deficiency of the limited training data, we selected quality images from the candidate set to be added to the training set for fine-tuning of the model with deep active learning. The trained robust segmentation models were used for QA purposes. The segmentation evaluation metrics derived from the validation set, including the Dice and Hausdorff distance, were used to develop the criteria for QA decision making. The performance of the strategy was assessed using the test set. Results: The QA method achieved promising contouring error detection, with the following metrics for the heart, esophagus, spinal cord, left lung, and right lung: balanced accuracy, 0.96, 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, and 0.97, respectively; sensitivity, 0.95, 0.98, 0.96, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively; specificity, 0.98, 0.92, 0.97, 0.94, and 0.94, respectively; and area under the receiving operator characteristic curve, 0.96, 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, and 0.94, respectively. Conclusions: The proposed system automatically detected contour errors for QA. It could provide consistent and objective evaluations with much reduced investigator intervention in multicenter clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 25 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 19%
Computer Science 10 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Physics and Astronomy 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 26 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2023.
All research outputs
#7,965,383
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#2,904
of 22,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,818
of 431,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#91
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,433 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.