Cited by 276Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Automatic multiorgan segmentation in thorax CT images using U‐net‐ GAN

Open access
Dong, Xue, Lei, Yang, Wang, Tonghe, Thomas, Matthew, Tang, Leonardo, Curran, Walter J., Liu, Tian, Yang, Xiaofeng·2019·Medical Physics

Abstract

Purpose: Accurate and timely organs‐at‐risk ( OARs ) segmentation is key to efficient and high‐quality radiation therapy planning. The purpose of this work is to develop a deep learning‐based method to automatically segment multiple thoracic OAR s on chest computed tomography ( CT ) for radiotherapy treatment planning. Methods: We propose an adversarial training strategy to train deep neural networks for the segmentation of multiple organs on thoracic CT images. The proposed design of adversarial networks, called U‐Net‐generative adversarial network (U‐Net‐ GAN ), jointly trains a set of U‐Nets as generators and fully convolutional networks ( FCN s) as discriminators. Specifically, the generator, composed of U‐Net, produces an image segmentation map of multiple organs by an end‐to‐end mapping learned from CT image to multiorgan‐segmented OAR s. The discriminator, structured as an FCN , discriminates between the ground truth and segmented OAR s produced by the generator. The generator and discriminator compete against each other in an adversarial learning process to produce the optimal segmentation map of multiple organs. Our segmentation results were compared with manually segmented OAR s (ground truth) for quantitative evaluations in geometric difference, as well as dosimetric performance by investigating the dose‐volume histogram in 20 stereotactic body radiation therapy ( SBRT ) lung plans. Results: This segmentation technique was applied to delineate the left and right lungs, spinal cord, esophagus, and heart using 35 patients’ chest CT s. The averaged dice similarity coefficient for the above five OAR s are 0.97, 0.97, 0.90, 0.75, and 0.87, respectively. The mean surface distance of the five OAR s obtained with proposed method ranges between 0.4 and 1.5 mm on average among all 35 patients. The mean dose differences on the 20 SBRT lung plans are −0.001 to 0.155 Gy for the five OAR s. Conclusion: We have investigated a novel deep learning‐based approach with a GAN strategy to segment multiple OAR s in the thorax using chest CT images and demonstrated its feasibility and reliability. This is a potentially valuable method for improving the efficiency of chest radiotherapy treatment planning.

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.13458

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • The IoU values in Table 1 are consistent with published benchmarks for U-Net-based thoracic OAR segmentation.

    “The IoU values in Table 1 are consistent with published benchmarks for U‐Net‐based thoracic OAR segmentation. 26”

    From Uncertainty quantification of U‐Net based segmentation tool using conformal prediction (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Results (page not supplied) provide published performance figures for U-Net-GAN segmentation of thoracic organs at risk, and the Discussion compares its performance with other methods. However, the paper reports Dice scores and other metrics, not IoU, so it does not directly establish that the citing paper’s Table 1 IoU values are consistent with its results. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 1

  1. [22]He K, Gkioxari G, Dollár P, Girshick R, “ Mask R-CNN,” arXiv:1703.06870 2017). 29994331 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dong, X., Lei, Y., Wang, T., Thomas, M., Tang, L., Curran, W. J., Liu, T., & Yang, X.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Xiaofeng
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-22
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
2157-2168
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2916412824
Cited by
275
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 9
FWCI
18.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01CA215718)
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 › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
organ-at-risk segmentation, chest CT, generative adversarial networks, radiotherapy treatment planning, stereotactic body radiotherapy, lung radiotherapy, spinal cord, esophagus, heart, lung segmentation, dose-volume histograms
MeSH terms
Esophagus, Heart, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Lung, Neoplasms, Radiotherapy Dosage, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Spinal Cord, Radiography, Thoracic, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated, Organs at Risk

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