ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Critical assessment of knowledge-based models for craniospinal irradiation of paediatric patients.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2025. 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.
- Knowledge-based model for automated multi-isocenter total marrow and lymphoid irradiation planning across standard and large patient anatomies.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- 'Line' Constraints Optimization for Improved Dose Distribution in Locally Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using Knowledge-Based Planning.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Knowledge-Based Planning (KBP) is increasingly used to standardize and optimize radiotherapy planning. This study aims to develop, refine, and compare multicentric KBP models for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in pediatric patients. Materials and methods: A total of 113 CSI treatments from three Italian centers were collected, comprising Computed Tomography scans, target and organ contours, and treatment plans. Treatment techniques included Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Three KBP models were developed: a full model (F-model) using data from 87 patients, a reduced model (R-model) based on a subset of the same sample, and a replanned model (RP-model) using KBP re-optimized plans. Models' quality was evaluated using goodness-of-fit and goodness-of-prediction metrics, and their performance was assessed on a validation set of 26 patients through dose-volume histogram (DVH) comparisons, prediction bias, and variance analysis. Results: The F-model and R-model exhibited similar quality and predictive ability, reflecting the variability of the original dataset and resulting in broad prediction intervals in low to mid-dose ranges. The RP-model achieved the highest quality, with narrower prediction bands. The RP-model is preferable for standardizing planning across centers, while the F-model is better suited for quality assurance as it captures clinical variability. Conclusions: KBP models can effectively predict DVHs despite extreme geometric variability. However, models trained on highly variable datasets cannot simultaneously achieve high precision and accuracy. Comparing KBP models is essential for establishing benchmarks to meet specific clinical goals, particularly for complex pediatric CSI treatments.
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.