ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Machine Learning for Predicting Clinician Evaluation of Treatment Plans for Left-Sided Whole Breast 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Monitoring of Early Skin Reactions by Optical Coherence Tomography and Dermatoscopy in Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer.Advances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this work was to investigate the ability of machine learning models to use treatment plan dosimetry for prediction of clinician approval of treatment plans (no further planning needed) for left-sided whole breast radiation therapy with boost. Methods and Materials: Investigated plans were generated to deliver a dose of 40.05 Gy to the whole breast in 15 fractions over 3 weeks, with the tumor bed simultaneously boosted to 48 Gy. In addition to the manually generated clinical plan of each of the 120 patients from a single institution, an automatically generated plan was included for each patient to enhance the number of study plans to 240. In random order, the treating clinician retrospectively scored all 240 plans as (1) approved without further planning to seek improvement or (2) further planning needed, while being blind for type of plan generation (manual or automated). In total, 2 × 5 classifiers were trained and evaluated for ability to correctly predict the clinician's plan evaluations: random forest (RF) and constrained logistic regression (LR) classifiers, each trained for 5 different sets of dosimetric plan parameters (feature sets [FS]). Importances of included features for predictions were investigated to better understand clinicians' choices. Results: Although all 240 plans were in principle clinically acceptable for the clinician, only for 71.5% was no further planning required. For the most extensive FS, accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and Cohen's κ for generated RF/LR models for prediction of approval without further planning were 87.2 ± 2.0/86.7 ± 2.2, 0.80 ± 0.03/0.86 ± 0.02, and 0.63 ± 0.05/0.69 ± 0.04, respectively. In contrast to LR, RF performance was independent of the applied FS. For both RF and LR, whole breast excluding boost PTV (PTV Conclusions: The investigated use of machine learning to predict clinician approval of treatment plans is highly promising. Including nondosimetric parameters could further increase classifiers' performances. The tool could become useful for aiding treatment planners in generating plans with a high probability of being directly approved by the treating clinician.
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.