放射治疗应用中的人工智能不确定性量化--范围综述

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Radiotherapy and Oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110542
Kareem A. Wahid , Zaphanlene Y. Kaffey , David P. Farris , Laia Humbert-Vidan , Amy C. Moreno , Mathis Rasmussen , Jintao Ren , Mohamed A. Naser , Tucker J. Netherton , Stine Korreman , Guha Balakrishnan , Clifton D. Fuller , David Fuentes , Michael J. Dohopolski
{"title":"放射治疗应用中的人工智能不确定性量化--范围综述","authors":"Kareem A. Wahid ,&nbsp;Zaphanlene Y. Kaffey ,&nbsp;David P. Farris ,&nbsp;Laia Humbert-Vidan ,&nbsp;Amy C. Moreno ,&nbsp;Mathis Rasmussen ,&nbsp;Jintao Ren ,&nbsp;Mohamed A. Naser ,&nbsp;Tucker J. Netherton ,&nbsp;Stine Korreman ,&nbsp;Guha Balakrishnan ,&nbsp;Clifton D. Fuller ,&nbsp;David Fuentes ,&nbsp;Michael J. Dohopolski","doi":"10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background/purpose</h3><p>The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiotherapy (RT) is expanding rapidly. However, there exists a notable lack of clinician trust in AI models, underscoring the need for effective uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods. The purpose of this study was to scope existing literature related to UQ in RT, identify areas of improvement, and determine future directions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We followed the PRISMA-ScR scoping review reporting guidelines. We utilized the population (human cancer patients), concept (utilization of AI UQ), context (radiotherapy applications) framework to structure our search and screening process. We conducted a systematic search spanning seven databases, supplemented by manual curation, up to January 2024. Our search yielded a total of 8980 articles for initial review. Manuscript screening and data extraction was performed in Covidence. Data extraction categories included general study characteristics, RT characteristics, AI characteristics, and UQ characteristics.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 56 articles published from 2015 to 2024. 10 domains of RT applications were represented; most studies evaluated auto-contouring (50 %), followed by image-synthesis (13 %), and multiple applications simultaneously (11 %). 12 disease sites were represented, with head and neck cancer being the most common disease site independent of application space (32 %). Imaging data was used in 91 % of studies, while only 13 % incorporated RT dose information. Most studies focused on failure detection as the main application of UQ (60 %), with Monte Carlo dropout being the most commonly implemented UQ method (32 %) followed by ensembling (16 %). 55 % of studies did not share code or datasets.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our review revealed a lack of diversity in UQ for RT applications beyond auto-contouring. Moreover, we identified a clear need to study additional UQ methods, such as conformal prediction. Our results may incentivize the development of guidelines for reporting and implementation of UQ in RT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21041,"journal":{"name":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","volume":"201 ","pages":"Article 110542"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814024035205/pdfft?md5=3b2ec20e65e19cce054e8f3257230cf7&pid=1-s2.0-S0167814024035205-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications − A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Kareem A. Wahid ,&nbsp;Zaphanlene Y. Kaffey ,&nbsp;David P. Farris ,&nbsp;Laia Humbert-Vidan ,&nbsp;Amy C. Moreno ,&nbsp;Mathis Rasmussen ,&nbsp;Jintao Ren ,&nbsp;Mohamed A. Naser ,&nbsp;Tucker J. Netherton ,&nbsp;Stine Korreman ,&nbsp;Guha Balakrishnan ,&nbsp;Clifton D. Fuller ,&nbsp;David Fuentes ,&nbsp;Michael J. Dohopolski\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background/purpose</h3><p>The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiotherapy (RT) is expanding rapidly. However, there exists a notable lack of clinician trust in AI models, underscoring the need for effective uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods. The purpose of this study was to scope existing literature related to UQ in RT, identify areas of improvement, and determine future directions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We followed the PRISMA-ScR scoping review reporting guidelines. We utilized the population (human cancer patients), concept (utilization of AI UQ), context (radiotherapy applications) framework to structure our search and screening process. We conducted a systematic search spanning seven databases, supplemented by manual curation, up to January 2024. Our search yielded a total of 8980 articles for initial review. Manuscript screening and data extraction was performed in Covidence. Data extraction categories included general study characteristics, RT characteristics, AI characteristics, and UQ characteristics.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 56 articles published from 2015 to 2024. 10 domains of RT applications were represented; most studies evaluated auto-contouring (50 %), followed by image-synthesis (13 %), and multiple applications simultaneously (11 %). 12 disease sites were represented, with head and neck cancer being the most common disease site independent of application space (32 %). Imaging data was used in 91 % of studies, while only 13 % incorporated RT dose information. Most studies focused on failure detection as the main application of UQ (60 %), with Monte Carlo dropout being the most commonly implemented UQ method (32 %) followed by ensembling (16 %). 55 % of studies did not share code or datasets.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our review revealed a lack of diversity in UQ for RT applications beyond auto-contouring. Moreover, we identified a clear need to study additional UQ methods, such as conformal prediction. Our results may incentivize the development of guidelines for reporting and implementation of UQ in RT.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiotherapy and Oncology\",\"volume\":\"201 \",\"pages\":\"Article 110542\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814024035205/pdfft?md5=3b2ec20e65e19cce054e8f3257230cf7&pid=1-s2.0-S0167814024035205-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiotherapy and Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814024035205\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814024035205","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的人工智能(AI)在放射治疗(RT)中的应用正在迅速扩大。然而,临床医生对人工智能模型的信任度明显不足,这凸显了对有效的不确定性量化(UQ)方法的需求。本研究的目的是对与 RT 中不确定性量化相关的现有文献进行梳理,找出需要改进的地方,并确定未来的研究方向。方法我们遵循了 PRISMA-ScR 范围综述报告指南。我们利用人群(人类癌症患者)、概念(人工智能 UQ 的利用)、背景(放疗应用)框架来构建我们的搜索和筛选过程。我们对截至 2024 年 1 月的 7 个数据库进行了系统检索,并辅以人工整理。我们的搜索共产生了 8980 篇文章供初步审查。稿件筛选和数据提取在 Covidence 中进行。数据提取类别包括一般研究特征、RT特征、人工智能特征和UQ特征。代表了 RT 应用的 10 个领域;大多数研究评估了自动轮廓(50%),其次是图像合成(13%),以及同时评估多个应用(11%)。研究涉及 12 个疾病部位,其中头颈部癌症是最常见的疾病部位,与应用空间无关(32%)。91% 的研究使用了成像数据,只有 13% 的研究纳入了 RT 剂量信息。大多数研究将失效检测作为 UQ 的主要应用(60%),蒙特卡洛剔除是最常用的 UQ 方法(32%),其次是集合(16%)。55% 的研究没有共享代码或数据集。此外,我们还发现了研究其他 UQ 方法(如保形预测)的明确需求。我们的研究结果可能会促进制定 RT 中 UQ 的报告和实施指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Artificial intelligence uncertainty quantification in radiotherapy applications − A scoping review

Background/purpose

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiotherapy (RT) is expanding rapidly. However, there exists a notable lack of clinician trust in AI models, underscoring the need for effective uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods. The purpose of this study was to scope existing literature related to UQ in RT, identify areas of improvement, and determine future directions.

Methods

We followed the PRISMA-ScR scoping review reporting guidelines. We utilized the population (human cancer patients), concept (utilization of AI UQ), context (radiotherapy applications) framework to structure our search and screening process. We conducted a systematic search spanning seven databases, supplemented by manual curation, up to January 2024. Our search yielded a total of 8980 articles for initial review. Manuscript screening and data extraction was performed in Covidence. Data extraction categories included general study characteristics, RT characteristics, AI characteristics, and UQ characteristics.

Results

We identified 56 articles published from 2015 to 2024. 10 domains of RT applications were represented; most studies evaluated auto-contouring (50 %), followed by image-synthesis (13 %), and multiple applications simultaneously (11 %). 12 disease sites were represented, with head and neck cancer being the most common disease site independent of application space (32 %). Imaging data was used in 91 % of studies, while only 13 % incorporated RT dose information. Most studies focused on failure detection as the main application of UQ (60 %), with Monte Carlo dropout being the most commonly implemented UQ method (32 %) followed by ensembling (16 %). 55 % of studies did not share code or datasets.

Conclusion

Our review revealed a lack of diversity in UQ for RT applications beyond auto-contouring. Moreover, we identified a clear need to study additional UQ methods, such as conformal prediction. Our results may incentivize the development of guidelines for reporting and implementation of UQ in RT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Radiotherapy and Oncology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
2445
审稿时长
45 days
期刊介绍: Radiotherapy and Oncology publishes papers describing original research as well as review articles. It covers areas of interest relating to radiation oncology. This includes: clinical radiotherapy, combined modality treatment, translational studies, epidemiological outcomes, imaging, dosimetry, and radiation therapy planning, experimental work in radiobiology, chemobiology, hyperthermia and tumour biology, as well as data science in radiation oncology and physics aspects relevant to oncology.Papers on more general aspects of interest to the radiation oncologist including chemotherapy, surgery and immunology are also published.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating ChatGPT's competency in radiation oncology: A comprehensive assessment across clinical scenarios. Hypofractionated accelerated radiation dose-painting (HARD) improves outcomes in unresected soft-tissue sarcoma. Efficacy of radiotherapy for bone metastasis in breast cancer patients treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors. An update to the American Radium Society's appropriate use criteria of lower grade Gliomas: Integration of IDH inhibitors. Population based audit of heart radiation doses in 6925 high-risk breast cancer patients from the Danish breast cancer group RT Nation study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1