ArticleNPJ digital medicine2022
A digital physician peer to automatically detect erroneous prescriptions in radiotherapy.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing peer review rounds in radiation oncology: a scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Disease-Site Specific Peer Review Implementation: From Chart Rounds to the Treatment Couch.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Validation of a Novel Data-Driven Algorithm to Detect Atypical Prescriptions in Radiation Therapy.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- A Machine Learning Application to Classify Patients at Differing Levels of Risk of Opioid Use Disorder: Clinician-Based Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Implementation of a knowledge-based decision support system for treatment plan auditing through automation.Medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Appropriate dosing of radiation is crucial to patient safety in radiotherapy. Current quality assurance depends heavily on a physician peer-review process, which includes a review of the treatment plan's dose and fractionation. Potentially, physicians may not identify errors during this manual peer review due to time constraints and caseload. A novel prescription anomaly detection algorithm is designed that utilizes historical data from the past to predict anomalous cases. Such a tool can serve as an electronic peer who will assist the peer-review process providing extra safety to the patients. In our primary model, we create two dissimilarity metrics, R and F. R defining how far a new patient's prescription is from historical prescriptions. F represents how far away a patient's feature set is from that of the group with an identical or similar prescription. We flag prescription if either metric is greater than specific optimized cut-off values. We use thoracic cancer patients (n = 2504) as an example and extracted seven features. Our testing set f1 score is between 73%-94% for different treatment technique groups. We also independently validate our results by conducting a mock peer review with three thoracic specialists. Our model has a lower type II error rate compared to the manual peer-review by physicians.
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.