• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Guidance on selecting and evaluating AI auto-segmentation systems in clinical radiotherapy: insights from a six-vendor analysis.临床放射治疗中人工智能自动分割系统的选择与评估指南:来自六家供应商分析的见解
Phys Eng Sci Med. 2025 Mar;48(1):301-316. doi: 10.1007/s13246-024-01513-x. Epub 2025 Jan 13.
2
NRG Oncology Assessment of Artificial Intelligence Deep Learning-Based Auto-segmentation for Radiation Therapy: Current Developments, Clinical Considerations, and Future Directions.NRG 肿瘤学评估人工智能深度学习的自动分割在放射治疗中的应用:当前进展、临床考虑因素和未来方向。
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2024 May 1;119(1):261-280. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.10.033. Epub 2023 Nov 14.
3
A clinical evaluation of the performance of five commercial artificial intelligence contouring systems for radiotherapy.五种商用人工智能放疗轮廓勾画系统性能的临床评估
Front Oncol. 2023 Aug 4;13:1213068. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1213068. eCollection 2023.
4
Evaluating the clinical acceptability of deep learning contours of prostate and organs-at-risk in an automated prostate treatment planning process.评估自动前列腺治疗计划流程中深度学习前列腺和危及器官轮廓的临床可接受性。
Med Phys. 2022 Apr;49(4):2570-2581. doi: 10.1002/mp.15525. Epub 2022 Feb 21.
5
Evaluation of auto-segmentation accuracy of cloud-based artificial intelligence and atlas-based models.基于云的人工智能和图谱模型的自动分割准确性评估。
Radiat Oncol. 2021 Sep 9;16(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s13014-021-01896-1.
6
Evaluation of AI-based auto-contouring tools in radiotherapy: A single-institution study.基于人工智能的放疗自动轮廓勾画工具的评估:一项单机构研究。
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2025 Apr;26(4):e14620. doi: 10.1002/acm2.14620. Epub 2025 Jan 21.
7
Investigation on performance of multiple AI-based auto-contouring systems in organs at risks (OARs) delineation.多个人工智能自动勾画系统在危险器官(OARs)勾画中的性能研究。
Phys Eng Sci Med. 2024 Sep;47(3):1123-1140. doi: 10.1007/s13246-024-01434-9. Epub 2024 Sep 2.
8
Under-representation for Female Pelvis Cancers in Commercial Auto-segmentation Solutions and Open-source Imaging Datasets.商业自动分割解决方案和开源成像数据集中女性盆腔癌的代表性不足。
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2025 Feb;38:103651. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2024.10.003. Epub 2025 Jan 20.
9
[Not Available].[无可用内容]
Med Phys. 2024 Mar;51(3):2187-2199. doi: 10.1002/mp.16965. Epub 2024 Feb 6.
10
Artificial Intelligence for Radiotherapy Auto-Contouring: Current Use, Perceptions of and Barriers to Implementation.人工智能在放射治疗自动勾画中的应用:现状、认知与实施障碍。
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2023 Apr;35(4):219-226. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.01.014. Epub 2023 Jan 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Artificial intelligence-assisted radiation imaging pathways for distinguishing uterine fibroids and malignant lesions in patients presenting with cancer pain: a literature review.人工智能辅助放射成像途径用于区分癌症疼痛患者的子宫肌瘤和恶性病变:一项文献综述
Front Oncol. 2025 Jun 24;15:1621642. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1621642. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparative benchmarking of failure detection methods in medical image segmentation: Unveiling the role of confidence aggregation.医学图像分割中故障检测方法的比较基准测试:揭示置信度聚合的作用。
Med Image Anal. 2025 Apr;101:103392. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2024.103392. Epub 2024 Nov 30.
2
Ethical, legal, and regulatory landscape of artificial intelligence in Australian healthcare and ethical integration in radiography: A narrative review.澳大利亚医疗保健领域人工智能的伦理、法律和监管环境以及放射学中的伦理整合:一项叙述性综述。
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2024 Dec;55(4):101733. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101733. Epub 2024 Aug 6.
3
A multidisciplinary team and multiagency approach for AI implementation: A commentary for medical imaging and radiotherapy key stakeholders.人工智能实施的多学科团队与多机构方法:给医学影像和放射治疗关键利益相关者的评论
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2024 Dec;55(4):101717. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101717. Epub 2024 Jul 26.
4
Clinical, Cultural, Computational, and Regulatory Considerations to Deploy AI in Radiology: Perspectives of RSNA and MICCAI Experts.临床、文化、计算和监管因素对放射学中部署 AI 的考虑:RSNA 和 MICCAI 专家的观点。
Radiol Artif Intell. 2024 Jul;6(4):e240225. doi: 10.1148/ryai.240225.
5
A Responsible Framework for Applying Artificial Intelligence on Medical Images and Signals at the Point of Care: The PACS-AI Platform.在医疗图像和信号的即时护理点应用人工智能的负责任框架:PACS-AI 平台。
Can J Cardiol. 2024 Oct;40(10):1828-1840. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2024.05.025. Epub 2024 Jun 15.
6
A joint ESTRO and AAPM guideline for development, clinical validation and reporting of artificial intelligence models in radiation therapy.《ESTRO 和 AAPM 联合指南:放疗人工智能模型的开发、临床验证和报告》
Radiother Oncol. 2024 Aug;197:110345. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110345. Epub 2024 Jun 3.
7
Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement From the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR & RSNA.在放射学中开发、购买、实施和监测人工智能工具:实用考虑因素。ACR、CAR、ESR、RANZCR 和 RSNA 的多学会声明。
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2024 May;75(2):226-244. doi: 10.1177/08465371231222229. Epub 2024 Jan 22.
8
A clinical evaluation of the performance of five commercial artificial intelligence contouring systems for radiotherapy.五种商用人工智能放疗轮廓勾画系统性能的临床评估
Front Oncol. 2023 Aug 4;13:1213068. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1213068. eCollection 2023.
9
An investigation into the risk of population bias in deep learning autocontouring.深度学习自动勾画中的人群偏差风险研究
Radiother Oncol. 2023 Sep;186:109747. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109747. Epub 2023 Jun 16.
10
Toward fairness in artificial intelligence for medical image analysis: identification and mitigation of potential biases in the roadmap from data collection to model deployment.迈向医学图像分析人工智能的公平性:识别并减轻从数据收集到模型部署路线图中的潜在偏差
J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2023 Nov;10(6):061104. doi: 10.1117/1.JMI.10.6.061104. Epub 2023 Apr 26.

临床放射治疗中人工智能自动分割系统的选择与评估指南:来自六家供应商分析的见解

Guidance on selecting and evaluating AI auto-segmentation systems in clinical radiotherapy: insights from a six-vendor analysis.

作者信息

Rusanov Branimir, Ebert Martin A, Sabet Mahsheed, Rowshanfarzad Pejman, Barry Nathaniel, Kendrick Jake, Alkhatib Zaid, Gill Suki, Dass Joshua, Bucknell Nicholas, Croker Jeremy, Tang Colin, White Rohen, Bydder Sean, Taylor Mandy, Slama Luke, Mukwada Godfrey

机构信息

School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.

出版信息

Phys Eng Sci Med. 2025 Mar;48(1):301-316. doi: 10.1007/s13246-024-01513-x. Epub 2025 Jan 13.

DOI:10.1007/s13246-024-01513-x
PMID:39804550
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11997002/
Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) based auto-segmentation has demonstrated numerous benefits to clinical radiotherapy workflows. However, the rapidly changing regulatory, research, and market environment presents challenges around selecting and evaluating the most suitable solution. To support the clinical adoption of AI auto-segmentation systems, Selection Criteria recommendations were developed to enable a holistic evaluation of vendors, considering not only raw performance but associated risks uniquely related to the clinical deployment of AI. In-house experience and key bodies of work on ethics, standards, and best practices for AI in Radiation Oncology were reviewed to inform selection criteria and evaluation strategies. A retrospective analysis using the criteria was performed across six vendors, including a quantitative assessment using five metrics (Dice, Hausdorff Distance, Average Surface Distance, Surface Dice, Added Path Length) across 20 head and neck, 20 thoracic, and 19 male pelvis patients for AI models as of March 2023. A total of 47 selection criteria were identified across seven categories. A retrospective analysis showed that overall no vendor performed exceedingly well, with systematically poor performance in Data Security & Responsibility, Vendor Support Tools, and Transparency & Ethics. In terms of raw performance, vendors varied widely from excellent to poor. As new regulations come into force and the scope of AI auto-segmentation systems adapt to clinical needs, continued interest in ensuring safe, fair, and transparent AI will persist. The selection and evaluation framework provided herein aims to promote user confidence by exploring the breadth of clinically relevant factors to support informed decision-making.

摘要

基于人工智能(AI)的自动分割已在临床放射治疗工作流程中展现出诸多益处。然而,快速变化的监管、研究和市场环境给选择和评估最合适的解决方案带来了挑战。为支持临床采用AI自动分割系统,制定了选择标准建议,以便对供应商进行全面评估,不仅考虑原始性能,还考虑与AI临床部署独特相关的风险。回顾了内部经验以及放射肿瘤学中AI伦理、标准和最佳实践的关键工作成果,以为选择标准和评估策略提供参考。使用这些标准对六家供应商进行了回顾性分析,包括截至2023年3月对20例头颈部、20例胸部和19例男性盆腔患者的AI模型,采用五个指标(骰子系数、豪斯多夫距离、平均表面距离、表面骰子系数、增加路径长度)进行定量评估。共确定了七个类别的47条选择标准。回顾性分析表明,总体而言没有一家供应商表现极为出色,在数据安全与责任、供应商支持工具以及透明度与伦理方面存在系统性的不佳表现。在原始性能方面,供应商的表现差异很大,从优秀到较差不等。随着新法规的生效以及AI自动分割系统的范围适应临床需求,对确保安全、公平和透明的AI的持续关注将持续存在。本文提供的选择和评估框架旨在通过探索临床相关因素的广度来促进用户信心,以支持明智的决策。