Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33458358›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2020

Machine learning applications in radiation oncology: Current use and needs to support clinical implementation.

Charlotte L Brouwer, Anna M Dinkla, Liesbeth Vandewinckele, Wouter Crijns, Michaël Claessens, Dirk Verellen, Wouter van Elmpt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Artificial intelligence applications in prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024
    Review
  20. 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

7 authors.

Charlotte L BrouwerUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anna M DinklaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University, The Netherlands.
Liesbeth VandewinckeleDepartment Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Wouter CrijnsDepartment Oncology, Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Michaël ClaessensIridium Network, Wilrijk (Antwerp), Belgium.
Dirk VerellenIridium Network, Wilrijk (Antwerp), Belgium.
Wouter van ElmptDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe use of artificial intelligence (AI)/ machine learning (ML) applications in radiation oncology is emerging, however no clear guidelines on commissioning of ML-based applications exist. The purpose of this study was therefore to investigate the current use and needs to support implementation of ML-based applications in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsA survey was conducted among medical physicists in radiation oncology, consisting of four parts: clinical applications (1), model training, acceptance and commissioning (2), quality assurance (QA) in clinical practice and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (3), and need for education and guidelines (4). Survey answers of medical physicists of the same radiation oncology centre were treated as a separate unique responder in case reporting on different AI applications.

resultsIn total, 213 medical physicists from 202 radiation oncology centres were included in the analysis. Sixty-nine percent (1 4 7) was using (37%) or preparing (32%) to use ML in clinic, mostly for contouring and treatment planning. In 86%, human observers were still involved in daily clinical use for quality check of the output of the ML algorithm. Knowledge on ethics, legislation and data sharing was limited and scattered among responders. Besides the need for (implementation) guidelines, training of medical physicists and larger databases containing multicentre data was found to be the top priority to accommodate the further introduction of ML in clinical practice.

conclusionThe results of this survey indicated the need for education and guidelines on the implementation and quality assurance of ML-based applications to benefit clinical introduction.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceClinical implementationCommissioningMachine learningQuality assuranceRadiotherapySurvey

Identifiers

PMID33458358
PMCPMC7807598

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.