ReviewMolecular oncology2020
Harnessing data science to advance radiation oncology.
Review in Molecular oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in radiation treatment planning: a narrative review from automation to clinical decision support.Translational cancer research · 2026Review
- Ethical framework for artificial intelligence in healthcare research: A path to integrity.World journal of methodology · 2024Article
- Embracing rapid learning in radiotherapy: feasible and acceptable with stakeholder corroboration.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- End-to-end framework for automated collection of large multicentre radiotherapy datasets demonstrated in a Danish Breast Cancer Group cohort.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Regression Analysis of Factors Based on Cluster Analysis of Acute Radiation Pneumonia due to Radiation Therapy for Lung Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations.Molecular oncology · 2020Article
- Radiation Oncology - Towards a mission-oriented approach to cancer.Molecular oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiation oncology, a major treatment modality in the care of patients with malignant disease, is a technology- and computer-intensive medical specialty. As such, it should lend itself ideally to data science methods, where computer science, statistics, and clinical knowledge are combined to advance state-of-the-art care. Nevertheless, data science methods in radiation oncology research are still in their infancy and successful applications leading to improved patient care remain scarce. Here, we discuss data interoperability issues within and across organizational boundaries that hamper the introduction of big data and data science techniques in radiation oncology. At the semantic level, creating common underlying models and codification of the data, including the use of data elements with standardized definitions, an ontology, remains a work in progress. Methodological issues in data science and in the use of large population-based health data registries are identified. We show that data science methods and big data cannot replace randomized clinical trials in comparative effectiveness research by reviewing a series of instances where the outcomes of big data analyses and randomized trials are at odds. We also discuss the modern wave of machine learning and artificial intelligence as represented by deep learning and convolutional neural networks. Finally, we identify promising research avenues and remain optimistic that the data sources in radiation oncology can be linked to yield important insights in the near future. We argue that data science will be a valuable complement to, but not a replacement of, the traditional hypothesis-driven translational research chain and the randomized clinical trials that form the backbone of evidence-based medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.