ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Comparison of Machine-Learning and Deep-Learning Methods for the Prediction of Osteoradionecrosis Resulting From Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Deep learning for head and neck radiation dose prediction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Prognostic models for radiation-induced complications after radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Personalized Prevention of Osteoradionecrosis of the Jaws: From Clinical Risk Profiling and Site-Specific Dosimetry to Artificial Intelligence and Individualized Treatment-Effect Estimation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- The impact of sex on setup accuracy in radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a real-World observational study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Observational
- Machine Learning Models for Individualized Osteoradionecrosis Risk Prediction in Head and Neck Cancer.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- External validation of a multimodality deep-learning normal tissue complication probability model for mandibular osteoradionecrosis trained on 3D radiation distribution maps and clinical variables.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Data Science Opportunities To Improve Radiotherapy Planning and Clinical Decision Making.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2024Review
- Vision Transformer-Based Multilabel Survival Prediction for Oropharynx Cancer After Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Approaches for Integrating Clinical and Radiographic Data in the Early Detection of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw : Machine Learning Approaches for Integrating Clinical Data in Osteonecrosis of the Jaw.Galen medical journal · 2024Review
- In Regard to Reber et al.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Deep-learning (DL) techniques have been successful in disease-prediction tasks and could improve the prediction of mandible osteoradionecrosis (ORN) resulting from head and neck cancer (HNC) radiation therapy. In this study, we retrospectively compared the performance of DL algorithms and traditional machine-learning (ML) techniques to predict mandible ORN binary outcome in an extensive cohort of patients with HNC. Methods and Materials: Patients who received HNC radiation therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2005 to 2015 were identified for the ML (n = 1259) and DL (n = 1236) studies. The subjects were followed for ORN development for at least 12 months, with 173 developing ORN and 1086 having no evidence of ORN. The ML models used dose-volume histogram parameters to predict ORN development. These models included logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and a random classifier reference. The DL models were based on ResNet, DenseNet, and autoencoder-based architectures. The DL models used each participant's dose cropped to the mandible. The effect of increasing the amount of available training data on the DL models' prediction performance was evaluated by training the DL models using increasing ratios of the original training data. Results: The F1 score for the logistic regression model, the best-performing ML model, was 0.3. The best-performing ResNet, DenseNet, and autoencoder-based models had F1 scores of 0.07, 0.14, and 0.23, respectively, whereas the random classifier's F1 score was 0.17. No performance increase was apparent when we increased the amount of training data available for DL model training. Conclusions: The ML models had superior performance to their DL counterparts. The lack of improvement in DL performance with increased training data suggests that either more data are needed for appropriate DL model construction or that the image features used in DL models are not suitable for this task.
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.