ReviewJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2026
Systematic review of artificial intelligence in brachytherapy.
Review in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to systematically review the scientific literature on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in brachytherapy (BT), including deep learning and machine learning approaches. AI methods were quantitively and/or qualitatively compared with current clinical standards. Material and methods: Included studies were accepted, peer-reviewed journal articles on AI in BT, published from January 1, 1980 till August 1, 2025 in PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and multi-institutional library databases. Articles were reviewed, and either included or excluded due to inclusion criteria or scope. Studies were searched for the application to BT, AI description, training and testing datasets, input and output of AI, treatment description, ground truth classification, accuracy compared with ground truth, and time for results. This review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results/Conclusions: A total of 232 studies were identified, which fulfilled inclusion criteria and scope after an initial yield of 10,820 results from database searches. Studies per application were 38, 74, 8, 40, 27, and 15 for applicator/needle reconstruction, segmentation, imaging applications, dose calculation, outcome prediction, and other planning applications, respectively. Studies per disease sites were 56, 66, 2, 3, 3, and 35 for prostate, gynecological, breast, choroidal, head and neck, and no specific site or multiple sites, respectively. The selected research demonstrated that AI may produce clinically acceptable planning data in significantly less time than required currently. The literature remains highly retrospective, but AI has the potential to reduce human effort and increase efficiency in repetitive tasks.
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.