Performance of Commercial Deep Learning-Based Auto-Segmentation Software for Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy Planning: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As yet, there is no systematic review focusing on benefits and issues of commercial deep learning-based auto-segmentation (DLAS) software for prostate cancer (PCa) radiation therapy (RT) planning despite that NRG Oncology has underscored such necessity. This article’s purpose is to systematically review commercial DLAS software product performances for PCa RT planning and their associated evaluation methodology. A literature search was performed with the use of electronic databases on 7 November 2024. Thirty-two articles were included as per the selection criteria. They evaluated 12 products (Carina Medical LLC INTContour (Lexington, KY, USA), Elekta AB ADMIRE (Stockholm, Sweden), Limbus AI Inc. Contour (Regina, SK, Canada), Manteia Medical Technologies Co. AccuContour (Jian Sheng, China), MIM Software Inc. Contour ProtégéAI (Cleveland, OH, USA), Mirada Medical Ltd. DLCExpert (Oxford, UK), MVision.ai Contour+ (Helsinki, Finland), Radformation Inc. AutoContour (New York, NY, USA), RaySearch Laboratories AB RayStation (Stockholm, Sweden), Siemens Healthineers AG AI-Rad Companion Organs RT, syngo.via RT Image Suite and DirectORGANS (Erlangen, Germany), Therapanacea Annotate (Paris, France), and Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Ethos (Palo Alto, CA, USA)). Their results illustrate that the DLAS products can delineate 12 organs at risk (abdominopelvic cavity, anal canal, bladder, body, cauda equina, left (L) and right (R) femurs, L and R pelvis, L and R proximal femurs, and sacrum) and four clinical target volumes (prostate, lymph nodes, prostate bed, and seminal vesicle bed) with clinically acceptable outcomes, resulting in delineation time reduction, 5.7–81.1%. Although NRG Oncology has recommended each clinical centre to perform its own DLAS product evaluation prior to clinical implementation, such evaluation seems more important for AccuContour and Ethos due to the methodological issues of the respective single studies, e.g., small dataset used, etc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".