Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37165761›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

Proof-of-concept study of artificial intelligence-assisted review of CBCT image guidance.

Jack Neylon, Dishane C Luximon, Timothy Ritter, James M Lamb

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jack NeylonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Dishane C LuximonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Timothy RitterDepartment of Medical Physics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
James M LambDepartment of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USVirginia Commonwealth University Medical Center · US

Funding

Automated Image Analysis for Prevention of Radiotherapy Delivery ErrorsR01HS026486 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LAMB, JAMES MICHAEL · 2018 to 2022
$1.8M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS026486
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAutomation and computer assistance can support quality assurance tasks in radiotherapy. Retrospective image review requires significant human resources, and automation of image review remains a noteworthy missing element in previous work. Here, we present initial findings from a proof-of-concept clinical implementation of an AI-assisted review of CBCT registrations used for patient setup.

methodsAn automated pipeline was developed and executed nightly, utilizing python scripts to interact with the clinical database through DICOM networking protocol and automate data retrieval and analysis. A previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm scored CBCT setup registrations based on misalignment likelihood, using a scale from 0 (most unlikely) through 1 (most likely). Over a 45-day period, 1357 pre-treatment CBCT registrations from 197 patients were retrieved and analyzed by the pipeline. Daily summary reports of the previous day's registrations were produced. Initial action levels targeted 10% of cases to highlight for in-depth physics review. A validation subset of 100 cases was scored by three independent observers to characterize AI-model performance.

resultsFollowing an ROC analysis, a global threshold for model predictions of 0.87 was determined, with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 82%. Inspecting the observer scores for the stratified validation dataset showed a statistically significant correlation between observer scores and model predictions.

conclusionIn this work, we describe the implementation of an automated AI-analysis pipeline for daily quantitative analysis of CBCT-guided patient setup registrations. The AI-model was validated against independent expert observers, and appropriate action levels were determined to minimize false positives without sacrificing sensitivity. Case studies demonstrate the potential benefits of such a pipeline to bolster quality and safety programs in radiotherapy. To the authors' knowledge, there are no previous works performing AI-assisted assessment of pre-treatment CBCT-based patient alignment.

Indexed as

Radiotherapy, Image-GuidedSpiral Cone-Beam Computed TomographyArtificial IntelligenceCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective Studiesartificial IntelligenceCBCTIGRTquality control

Identifiers

PMID37165761
PMCPMC10476980
OpenAlexW4376133694

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.