Cited by 89Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Comparative evaluation of autocontouring in clinical practice: A practical method using the Turing test

Open access
Gooding, Mark J., Smith, Annamarie J., Tariq, Maira, Aljabar, Paul, Peressutti, Devis, van der Stoep, Judith, Reymen, Bart, Emans, Daisy +9 more·2018·Medical Physics

Abstract

Purpose: Automated techniques for estimating the contours of organs and structures in medical images have become more widespread and a variety of measures are available for assessing their quality. Quantitative measures of geometric agreement, for example, overlap with a gold‐standard delineation, are popular but may not predict the level of clinical acceptance for the contouring method. Therefore, surrogate measures that relate more directly to the clinical judgment of contours, and to the way they are used in routine workflows, need to be developed. The purpose of this study is to propose a method (inspired by the Turing Test) for providing contour quality measures that directly draw upon practitioners’ assessments of manual and automatic contours. This approach assumes that an inability to distinguish automatically produced contours from those of clinical experts would indicate that the contours are of sufficient quality for clinical use. In turn, it is anticipated that such contours would receive less manual editing prior to being accepted for clinical use. In this study, an initial assessment of this approach is performed with radiation oncologists and therapists. Methods: Eight clinical observers were presented with thoracic organ‐at‐risk contours through a web interface and were asked to determine if they were automatically generated or manually delineated. The accuracy of the visual determination was assessed, and the proportion of contours for which the source was misclassified recorded. Contours of six different organs in a clinical workflow were for 20 patient cases. The time required to edit autocontours to a clinically acceptable standard was also measured, as a gold standard of clinical utility. Established quantitative measures of autocontouring performance, such as Dice similarity coefficient with respect to the original clinical contour and the misclassification rate accessed with the proposed framework, were evaluated as surrogates of the editing time measured. Results: The mis classification rates for each organ were: esophagus 30.0%, heart 22.9%, left lung 51.2%, right lung 58.5%, mediastinum envelope 43.9%, and spinal cord 46.8%. The time savings resulting from editing the autocontours compared to the standard clinical workflow were 12%, 25%, 43%, 77%, 46%, and 50%, respectively, for these organs. The median Dice similarity coefficients between the clinical contours and the autocontours were 0.46, 0.90, 0.98, 0.98, 0.94, and 0.86, respectively, for these organs. Conclusions: A better correspondence with time saving was observed for the misclassification rate than the quantitative contour measures explored. From this, we conclude that the inability to accurately judge the source of a contour indicates a reduced need for editing and therefore a greater time saving overall. Hence, task‐based assessments of contouring performance may be considered as an additional way of evaluating the clinical utility of autosegmentation methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mp.13200

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A blinded side-by-side comparison, akin to a comparative Turing test, was performed to assess an experienced operator's ability to discriminate between manual and automated outputs for the 60 multi-class test cases.

    “Finally, a blinded comparison was performed to assess an experienced operator’s (GS) ability to discriminate between the manual and automated outputs using a side-by-side comparison, akin to a comparative Turing test [39] for the 60 multi-class test cases.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Gunderson K. The imitation game. Mind. 1964;73:234-245.
  2. Harnad S. The Turing Test is not a trick: Turing indistinguishability is a scientific criterion. 1992;3:9-10.
  3. Aguilar C, Edholm K, Simmons A, et al. To develop an algorithm to segment and obtain an estimate of total intracranial volume (tICV) from computed tomography (CT) images. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3151-3160.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gooding, M. J., Smith, A. J., Tariq, M., Aljabar, P., Peressutti, D., van der Stoep, J., Reymen, B., Emans, D., Hattu, D., van Loon, J., de Rooy, M., Wanders, R., Peeters, S., Lustberg, T., van Soest, J., Dekker, A., & van Elmpt, W.
Affiliations
  • Mirada Medical (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO) GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology Maastricht University Medical Centre+ Dr Tanslaan 12 6229ET Maastricht The Netherlands
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Corresponding author
Gooding, Mark J.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10-12
Volume
45
Issue
11
Pages
5105-5115
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2890012362
Cited by
89
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Innovate UK (600277)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
Turing test, thoracic organs, radiation oncology, Dice coefficient, esophagus, heart, lung, spinal cord, radiotherapy treatment planning
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Lung Neoplasms, Tomography, X-Ray Computed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review