ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of deliverable artificial intelligence-based automated volumetric arc radiation therapy planning for whole pelvic radiation in gynecologic cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical evaluation of novel deep learning-based auto-segmentation software: Utility and potential pitfalls.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Clinical edge-case stress testing of two Asia-developed AI auto-contouring systems using prostate radiotherapy planning CT images.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- A deep learning-driven automated treatment planning framework for cervical cancer patients treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of deliverable dose-mimicking automated volumetric arc radiation therapy planning for stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients: comparison with a commercial DVH-predicted automated planning system.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a deep learning (DL)-based deliverable whole pelvic volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT) for patients with gynecologic cancer using a prototype DL-based automated planning support system, named RatoGuide, to evaluate its clinical validity. In our hospital, 110 patients with gynecologic cancer were registered. The prescribed dose was 50.4 Gy/28 fr. A DL-based three-dimensional dose prediction model was first trained by the dose distribution and structure data of whole pelvic VMAT (n = 100) created on the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). The structure data of the test data (n = 10) were then input to RatoGuide, and RatoGuide predicted the dose distribution of the whole pelvic VMAT plan (PreDose). We established deliverable plans with Monaco and Eclipse TPS (DeliDose) based on PreDose and vendor-supplied optimization objectives. Medical physicists then manually developed plans (CliDose) for the test data. Finally, we evaluated and compared the dose distribution and dose constraints of PreDose, DeliDose, and CliDose. DeliDose, in both Eclipse and Monaco, was comparable to PreDose in most Dose constraints, planning target volume (PTV) coverage, and Dmax of the bladder, rectum, and bowel bag were better for DeliDose than for PreDose. Additionally, DeliDose demonstrated no significant difference from CliDose in most dose constraints. The blinded average scores of radiation oncologists for DeliDose and CliDose were 4.2 ± 0.4 and 4.3 ± 0.5, respectively, in Eclipse, and 4.0 ± 0.6 and 3.9 ± 0.5, respectively, in Monaco (5 is the max score and 3 is clinically acceptable). We indicated that RatoGuide can eliminate variations in plan quality between hospitals in whole pelvic VMAT irradiation and help develop VMAT plans in a short time.
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.