Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40164070›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025

Toward a human-centric co-design methodology for AI detection of differences between planned and delivered dose in radiotherapy.

Luca M Heising, Frank Verhaegen, Stefan G Scheib, Maria J G Jacobs, Carol X J Ou, Viola Mottarella, Yin-Ho Chong, Mariangela Zamburlini, Sebastiaan M J J G Nijsten, Ans Swinnen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

12 authors.

Luca M HeisingDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Frank VerhaegenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stefan G ScheibVarian, a Siemens Healthineers Company, Baden-Dättwil, Switzerland.
Maria J G JacobsDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Carol X J OuDepartment of Management, Tilburg School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Viola MottarellaVarian, a Siemens Healthineers Company, Baden-Dättwil, Switzerland.
Yin-Ho ChongVarian, a Siemens Healthineers Company, Baden-Dättwil, Switzerland.
Mariangela ZamburliniVarian, a Siemens Healthineers Company, Baden-Dättwil, Switzerland.
Sebastiaan M J J G NijstenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ans SwinnenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Michel ÖllersDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Cecile J A WolfsDepartment of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW Research Institute for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Siemens Healthineers companyTilburg University ICON
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany artificial intelligence (AI) solutions have been proposed to enhance the radiotherapy (RT) workflow, but limited applications have been implemented to date, suggesting an implementation gap. One contributing factor to this gap is a misalignment between AI systems and their users. To address the AI implementation gap, we propose a human-centric methodology, novel in RT, for an interface design of an AI-driven RT treatment error detection system.

methodsA 5-day design sprint was set up with a multi-disciplinary team of clinical and research staff and a commercial company. In the design sprint, an interface was prototyped to aid medical physicists in catching treatment errors during daily treatment fractions using dose-guided RT (DGRT) with a portal imager.

resultsThe design sprint resulted in a simulated prototype of an interface supported by all stakeholders. Important features of an interface include the AI certainty metric, explainable AI features, feedback options, and decision aid. The prototype was well-received by expert users. CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION: Using a co-creation strategy, which is a novel approach in RT, we were able to prototype a novel human-interpretable interface to detect RT treatment errors and aid the DGRT workflow. Users showed confidence that the overall design method and the proposed prototype could lead to a viable clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAlgorithmsHumansRadiotherapy Dosageartificial intelligencedose‐guided radiotherapyexplainable artificial intelligencehuman‐AI interactionhuman‐centric designin vivo dosimetryradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID40164070
PMCPMC12148753

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.