ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Automated identification of radiotherapy treatment sites from unstructured physician notes.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAmbiguous or incomplete documentation is a recurrent bottleneck in radiation oncology workflows, leading to inefficiencies in communication and potential treatment delays. Large language models (LLMs) pose a solution to addressing these ambiguities without added burden to clinical staff. We aim to assess the effectiveness of Meta's open-source Llama 3.3 model in using physician consultation notes to isolate and classify anatomical treatment sites and create helpful extractive summaries for each patient.
methodsSemi-structured interviews with five radiation therapists revealed that CT simulation orders lack the necessary details to acquire the appropriate image. A retrospective cohort of 100 patient notes was used for iterative prompt engineering. The final model was evaluated on an independent test cohort of 52 patient notes. The LLM's accuracy in identifying the treatment site was benchmarked against two human observers (a medical physicist and a physician) as well as the final delivered treatment plan (ground truth). The helpfulness and accuracy of the AI-generated summaries were also rated by both observers on a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsLlama 3.3 achieved a weighted accuracy of 94.2% [95%CI: 89.4%-98.1%] when compared to sites isolated by either observer. When compared to the sites isolated from the retrospectively delivered plans, the model reached a weighted accuracy of 92.3% [95% CI: 87.5%-97.1%]. The model classified the anatomical sites with a weighted accuracy of 96.2% [95%CI: 87.0% -98.9%]. The AI-generated summaries were highly rated by both observers (Observer 1: 4.96 [95%CI: 4.87-5.00] and Observer 2: 4.58 [95% CI: 4.38-4.73]).
conclusionThis pilot study provides foundational evidence that LLMs can classify data with high accuracy, achieve benchmarks comparable to human experts when isolating anatomical treatment sites, and produce clinically helpful summaries. Our results suggest that LLMs can be effectively integrated to streamline complex radiotherapy workflows in the clinic.
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.