ArticleCureus2023
Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Radiation Oncology: Can Humans Spot AI?
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Deep Learning-Based Auto-Contouring Software Achieve Accurate Pelvic Volume Delineation in Volumetric Image-Guided Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer? A Preliminary Multicentric Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Synthesizing Efficiency Tools in Radiotherapy to Increase Patient Flow: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming healthcare, particularly in radiation oncology. AI-based contouring tools like Limbus are designed to delineate Organs at Risk (OAR) and Target Volumes quickly. This study evaluates the accuracy and efficiency of AI contouring compared to human radiation oncologists and the ability of professionals to differentiate between AI-generated and human-generated contours. Methods At a recent AI conference in Abu Dhabi, a blind comparative analysis was performed to assess AI's performance in radiation oncology. Participants included four human radiation oncologists and the Limbus® AI software. They contoured specific regions from CT scans of a breast cancer patient. The audience, consisting of healthcare professionals and AI experts, was challenged to identify the AI-generated contours. The exercise was repeated twice to observe any learning effects. Time taken for contouring and audience identification accuracy were recorded. Results Initially, only 28% of the audience correctly identified the AI contours, which slightly increased to 31% in the second attempt. This indicated a difficulty in distinguishing between AI and human expertise. The AI completed contouring in up to 60 seconds, significantly faster than the human average of 8 minutes. Discussion The results indicate that AI can perform radiation contouring comparably to human oncologists but much faster. The challenge faced by professionals in identifying AI versus human contours highlights AI's advanced capabilities in medical tasks. Conclusion AI shows promise in enhancing radiation oncology workflow by reducing contouring time without quality compromise. Further research is needed to confirm AI contouring's clinical efficacy and its integration into routine practice.
Indexed as
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.