Vision 20/20: Perspectives on automated image segmentation for radiotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to rapid advances in radiation therapy (RT), especially image guidance and treatment adaptation, a fast and accurate segmentation of medical images is a very important part of the treatment. Manual delineation of target volumes and organs at risk is still the standard routine for most clinics, even though it is time consuming and prone to intra- and interobserver variations. Automated segmentation methods seek to reduce delineation workload and unify the organ boundary definition. In this paper, the authors review the current autosegmentation methods particularly relevant for applications in RT. The authors outline the methods' strengths and limitations and propose strategies that could lead to wider acceptance of autosegmentation in routine clinical practice. The authors conclude that currently, autosegmentation technology in RT planning is an efficient tool for the clinicians to provide them with a good starting point for review and adjustment. Modern hardware platforms including GPUs allow most of the autosegmentation tasks to be done in a range of a few minutes. In the nearest future, improvements in CT-based autosegmentation tools will be achieved through standardization of imaging and contouring protocols. In the longer term, the authors expect a wider use of multimodality approaches and better understanding of correlation of imaging with biology and pathology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it