Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32544635›Full record

ArticlePractical radiation oncology

National Cancer Institute Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Radiation Oncology: Training the Next Generation.

John Kang, Reid F Thompson, Sanjay Aneja, Constance Lehman, Andrew Trister, James Zou, Ceferino Obcemea, Issam El Naqa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Practical radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

8 authors.

John KangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. Electronic address: johnkan1@alumni.cmu.edu.
Reid F ThompsonDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; VA Portland Healthcare System, Portland, Oregon.
Sanjay AnejaDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Constance LehmanDepartment of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Mass General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Andrew TristerBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington.
James ZouDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, California.
Ceferino ObcemeaRadiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Issam El NaqaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Funding

Stanford Medicine Center for Longevity and Healthy Aging Research Education CoreP30AG059307 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI MALDONADO, YVONNE A. · 2018 to 2025
$4.9M
Combined radiation acoustics and ultrasound imaging for real-time guidance in radiotherapyR37CA222215 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI EL NAQA, ISSAM M. · 2018 to 2024
$3.5M
Optimal Decision Making in Radiotherapy Using Panomics AnalyticsR01CA233487 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI EL NAQA, ISSAM M. · 2019 to 2023
$2.4M
Quantifying and improving radiotherapy outcomes among VeteransIK2CX002049 · VA · PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI THOMPSON, REID · 2020 to 2025
–
CSRD VA IK2 CX002049NCI NIH HHS R01 CA233487NCI NIH HHS R37 CA222215NIA NIH HHS P30 AG059307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeArtificial intelligence (AI) is about to touch every aspect of radiation therapy, from consultation to treatment planning, quality assurance, therapy delivery, and outcomes modeling. There is an urgent need to train radiation oncologists and medical physicists in data science to help shepherd AI solutions into clinical practice. Poorly trained personnel may do more harm than good when attempting to apply rapidly developing and complex technologies. As the amount of AI research expands in our field, the radiation oncology community needs to discuss how to educate future generations in this area. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Workshop on AI in Radiation Oncology (Shady Grove, MD, April 4-5, 2019) was the first of 2 data science workshops in radiation oncology hosted by the NCI in 2019. During this workshop, the Training and Education Working Group was formed by volunteers among the invited attendees. Its members represent radiation oncology, medical physics, radiology, computer science, industry, and the NCI.

resultsIn this perspective article written by members of the Training and Education Working Group, we provide and discuss action points relevant for future trainees interested in radiation oncology AI: (1) creating AI awareness and responsible conduct; (2) implementing a practical didactic curriculum; (3) creating a publicly available database of training resources; and (4) accelerating learning and funding opportunities.

conclusionTogether, these action points can facilitate the translation of AI into clinical practice.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRadiation OncologyArtificial IntelligenceCurriculumHumansNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Radiation OncologistsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32544635
PMCPMC7293478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.