MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409790695 · doi:10.1002/mp.17840

Geometrically focused training and evaluation of organs‐at‐risk segmentation via deep learning

2025· article· en· W4409790695 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruiyan Ni, Elizabeth Chuk, Kathy Han, Jennifer Croke, Anthony Fyles, Jelena Luković, Michael Milosevic, Benjamin Haibe‐Kains, Alexandra Rink

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsVector InstitutePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningSegmentationTraining (meteorology)Medical imagingImage segmentationComputer scienceMedical physicsComputer visionMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Deep learning methods are promising in automating segmentation of organs at risk (OARs) in radiotherapy. However, the lack of a geometric indicator for dosimetry accuracy remains to be a problem. This issue is particularly pronounced in specific radiotherapy treatments where only the proximity of structures to the radiotherapy target affects the dose planning. In cervical cancer high dose‐rate (HDR) brachytherapy, treatment planning is motivated by limiting dose to the hottest 2 cubic centimeters (D2cm 3 ) of the OARs. Similarly, Ethos online adaptive radiotherapy system prioritizes only the closest target structures for adaptive plan generation. Purpose We propose a novel geometrically focused deep learning training method and evaluation metric, using cervical brachytherapy as a case study. A distance‐penalized (DP) loss function was developed to focus attention on the near‐to‐target OAR regions. We also introduced and evaluated a novel geometric metric, weighted dice similarity coefficient (wDSC), correlated with OARs D2cm 3 . Methods A model was trained using a 3D U‐Net architecture and 170 T2‐weighted magnetic resonance (MR) images (56 patients) with clinical contours. The dataset was split into subsets at the patient level: 45 patients (150 scans) as the training set for five‐fold cross‐validation and 11 patients (20 scans) as the testing set. Another dataset from our institution, consisting of 35 MR scans from 22 cervical cancer patients, was used as an independent internal testing set. A distance map, emphasizing errors near high‐risk clinical target volume (CTV HR ), was used to penalize two commonly used loss functions, cross‐entropy (CE) loss and DiceCE loss. The wDSC emphasizes the accuracy of OAR regions proximal to CTV HR by incorporating a weighted factor in the original vDSC. The Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) was used to quantify the strength of the relationship between D2cm 3 accuracy and six evaluation metrics (wDSC and five standard metrics). A physician rated and revised the auto‐contours for the clinical acceptability tests. Results The wDSC moderately correlated ( r = ‐0.55) with D2cm 3 accuracy, outperforming standard geometric metrics. Models using DP loss functions consistently yielded higher wDSCs compared to their respective non‐DP counterparts. DP loss models also improved D2cm 3 accuracy, indicating an enhanced accuracy in dosimetry. The clinical acceptability tests revealed that more than 94% of bladder and rectum contours and approximately half of the sigmoid and small bowel contours were clinically accepted. Conclusion We developed and evaluated a new geometric metric, wDSC, as a better indicator of D2cm 3 accuracy, which has the potential to become a surrogate for dosimetric accuracy in cervical brachytherapy. The model with DP loss showed non‐statistically significant improvements in geometric and dosimetric performance. This work also holds the potential to be used for precise OARs delineation in adaptive radiotherapy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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