Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37205277›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Augmenting Quality Assurance Measures in Treatment Review with Machine Learning in Radiation Oncology.

Malvika Pillai, John W Shumway, Karthik Adapa, John Dooley, Ross McGurk, Lukasz M Mazur, Shiva K Das, Bhishamjit S Chera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Malvika PillaiCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
John W ShumwayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Karthik AdapaCarolina Health Informatics Program, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
John DooleyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ross McGurkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Lukasz M MazurDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Shiva K DasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Bhishamjit S CheraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

An Interdisciplinary Program for Advanced Training in Health Data AnalyticsT15LM012500 · NLM · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MOSTAFA, JAVED · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM012500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Pretreatment quality assurance (QA) of treatment plans often requires a high cognitive workload and considerable time expenditure. This study explores the use of machine learning to classify pretreatment chart check QA for a given radiation plan as difficult or less difficult, thereby alerting the physicists to increase scrutiny on difficult plans. Methods and Materials: Pretreatment QA data were collected for 973 cases between July 2018 and October 2020. The outcome variable, a degree of difficulty, was collected as a subjective rating by physicists who performed the pretreatment chart checks. Potential features were identified based on clinical relevance, contribution to plan complexity, and QA metrics. Five machine learning models were developed: support vector machine, random forest classifier, adaboost classifier, decision tree classifier, and neural network. These were incorporated into a voting classifier, where at least 2 algorithms needed to predict a case as difficult for it to be classified as such. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate feature importance. Results: The voting classifier achieved an overall accuracy of 77.4% on the test set, with 76.5% accuracy on difficult cases and 78.4% accuracy on less difficult cases. Sensitivity analysis showed features associated with plan complexity (number of fractions, dose per monitor unit, number of planning structures, and number of image sets) and clinical relevance (patient age) were sensitive across at least 3 algorithms. Conclusions: This approach can be used to equitably allocate plans to physicists rather than randomly allocate them, potentially improving pretreatment chart check effectiveness by reducing errors propagating downstream.

Identifiers

PMID37205277
PMCPMC10185740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.