ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Quantifying manual editing time in autocontouring via audit log analysis.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based contouring reduces delineation workload, yet manual corrections remain required. Reliable, scalable quantification of structure-level editing time is needed to evaluate clinical usability beyond geometric similarity metrics as geometric metrics may not reflect how tooling impacts edit time. Materials and methods: This retrospective observational study analysed 3083 AI-generated, edited structures created in routine practice. Structure-modifying actions were extracted from the treatment planning system audit log database and converted to per-structure editing time by summing inter-event intervals. Automatic times were benchmarked against manual time recordings for 54 structures across 8 patient cases using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Added path length (APL) between AI and corrected contours was computed, and the associations between editing time, APL and tooling (interpolation use) were investigated using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results: Audit log-derived editing time agreed well with manual timing (CCC = 0.93). In the full cohort, 3083/24970 structures were edited (12% correction rate). Brush tools were used in 80% and contour interpolation in 42% of edited structures. Median editing time and APL were higher with interpolation than without (81 s vs 58 s; 232 mm vs 18 mm; both Conclusions: Vendor audit logs could be translated into accurate structure-level editing time estimates, enabling low-burden monitoring of manual workload. Editing strategy influenced time-geometry relationships, supporting log-based time endpoints alongside geometric metrics for meaningful auto-contouring evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.