MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210656052 · doi:10.1101/2022.01.15.22269276

SCARF: Auto-Segmentation Clinical Acceptability & Reproducibility Framework for Benchmarking Essential Radiation Therapy Targets in Head and Neck Cancer

2022· preprint· en· W4210656052 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Marsilla, Jun Won Kim, Denis Tkachuck, Ali Hosni, Sejin Kim, Kristine Jacinto, Joshua Siraj, John Cho, Ezra Hahn, Mattea Welch, Michal Kazmierski, Katrina Rey‐McIntyre, Shao Hui Huang, Tirth Patel, Tony Tadic, Fei‐Fei Liu, Scott V. Bratman, Andrew Hope, Benjamin Haibe‐Kains

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsVector InstitutePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceReproducibilityGeneralizability theoryBenchmark (surveying)Medical physicsMachine learningMedicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Auto-segmentation of organs at risk (OAR) in cancer patients is essential for enhancing radiotherapy planning efficacy and reducing inter-observer variability. Deep learning auto-segmentation models have shown promise, but their lack of transparency and reproducibility hinders their generalizability and clinical acceptability, limiting their use in clinical settings. Materials and Methods: This study introduces SCARF (auto-Segmentation Clinical Acceptability & Reproducibility Framework), a comprehensive six-stage reproducible framework designed to benchmark open-source convolutional neural networks for auto-segmentation of 19 essential OARs in head and neck cancer (HNC). Results: SCARF offers an easily implementable framework for designing and reproducibly benchmarking auto-segmentation tools, along with thorough expert assessment capabilities. Expert assessment labelled 16/19 AI-generated OAR categories as acceptable with minor revisions. Boundary distance metrics, such as 95th Percentile Hausdorff Distance (95HD), were found to be 2x more correlated to Mean Acceptability Rating (MAR) than volumetric overlap metrics (DICE). Conclusions: The introduction of SCARF, our auto-Segmentation Clinical Acceptability & Reproducibility Framework, represents a significant step forward in systematically assessing the performance of AI models for auto-segmentation in radiation therapy planning. By providing a comprehensive and reproducible framework, SCARF facilitates benchmarking and expert assessment of AI-driven auto-segmentation tools, addressing the need for transparency and reproducibility in this domain. The robust foundation laid by SCARF enables the progression towards the creation of usable AI tools in the field of radiation therapy. Through its emphasis on clinical acceptability and expert assessment, SCARF fosters the integration of AI models into clinical environments, paving the way for more randomised clinical trials to evaluate their real-world impact.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207