Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39583148›Full record

ReviewBJR open2024

Artificial intelligence research in radiation oncology: a practical guide for the clinician on concepts and methods.

Frank J P Hoebers, Leonard Wee, Jirapat Likitlersuang, Raymond H Mak, Danielle S Bitterman, Yanqi Huang, Andre Dekker, Hugo J W L Aerts, Benjamin H Kann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJR open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Systematic review of artificial intelligence in brachytherapy.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Frank J P HoebersArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, MA 02115, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4317-9181
Leonard WeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, 6229ET, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1612-9055
Jirapat LikitlersuangArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, MA 02115, United States.
Raymond H MakArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, MA 02115, United States.
Danielle S BittermanArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, MA 02115, United States.
Yanqi HuangDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, 6229ET, the Netherlands.
Andre DekkerDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, 6229ET, the Netherlands.
Hugo J W L AertsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, MA 02115, United States.
Benjamin H KannArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM) Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, MA 02115, United States.

Funding

Shared Resource Core 2: Clinical Artificial Intelligence CoreU54CA274516 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI Benjamin Harris Kann · 2023 to 2026
$8.1M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA274516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) holds great promise for radiation oncology, with many applications being reported in the literature, including some of which are already in clinical use. These are mainly in areas where AI provides benefits in efficiency (such as automatic segmentation and treatment planning). Prediction models that directly impact patient decision-making are far less mature in terms of their application in clinical practice. Part of the limited clinical uptake of these models may be explained by the need for broader knowledge, among practising clinicians within the medical community, about the processes of AI development. This lack of understanding could lead to low commitment to AI research, widespread scepticism, and low levels of trust. This attitude towards AI may be further negatively impacted by the perception that deep learning is a "black box" with inherently low transparency. Thus, there is an unmet need to train current and future clinicians in the development and application of AI in medicine. Improving clinicians' AI-related knowledge and skills is necessary to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration between data scientists and physicians, that is, involving a clinician in the loop during AI development. Increased knowledge may also positively affect the acceptance and trust of AI. This paper describes the necessary steps involved in AI research and development, and thus identifies the possibilities, limitations, challenges, and opportunities, as seen from the perspective of a practising radiation oncologist. It offers the clinician with limited knowledge and experience in AI valuable tools to evaluate research papers related to an AI model application.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep learningmachine learningradiation oncology

Identifiers

PMID39583148
PMCPMC11585305

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.