Randomized trial assesses deep learning's ability to predict measurement uncertainty in tumor evaluations, suggesting new quality control approaches.
Background/Objectives: Inter-reader variation can alter unidimensional tumor measurements used in RECIST-oriented response assessment. Unlike systems that automate segmentation or target selection, this study aimed to predict lesion-specific measurement uncertainty itself. Methods: The development cohort comprised 463 lung, liver, and lymph-node lesions from 280 patients in Vol-PACT, with four segmentations per lesion. Inter-reader variability was defined as (maximum longest diameter–minimum longest diameter)/minimum longest diameter. A Swin Transformer was trained to regress this continuous score. A value > 0.20 was used as a pragmatic high-variability alert threshold, with high variability designated as the positive class; this threshold is not equivalent to RECIST progressive disease. Preliminary external evaluation used 21 NSCLC lesions with five reader contours, providing one reader mask at a time. Results: The validation and internal test AUCs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61–0.85) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80–0.95), respectively. On the internal test set, MAE was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.08–0.12), accuracy was 82% (95% CI, 74–90%), sensitivity 72% (95% CI, 59–85%), and specificity for lower-variability lesions was 92% (95% CI, 82–100%). Across the five external readers, AUCs ranged from 0.77 to 0.92; the wide confidence intervals reflect the small external sample. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept model may provide a measurement-quality signal that supports target selection or adjudication. Larger multi-institutional studies, patient-level resampling, calibration, ablation testing, and workflow validation are required before clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ibrahim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: