ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Validation of a Novel Data-Driven Algorithm to Detect Atypical Prescriptions in Radiation Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Erroneous radiation therapy (RT) prescriptions (Rx) can lead to injury or death of patients. A novel data-driven model that uses similarity learning to identify atypical Rx was recently published. In that study, prototype analysis was conducted within a single institution with a single treatment site. The present study sets out to validate the robustness of the model by applying the model to multiple disease sites using a different institution's data. Methods and Materials: A query was conducted of Brown University Health RT treatment records for thoracic and brain cancer patients from 1995 to 2021 to create historical databases used for training. The query included records containing data on the Rx and patient-specific features. Simulated anomalies were created to mimic potential errors and were used in the training and testing of the model. Model performance was evaluated using F1 score. Results: F1 scores for the brain site are 99% for intensity modulated RT, 90% for stereotactic radiation therapy/ radiosurgery/SRT, and 94% for 3-dimensional RT. F1 scores for the thoracic site are 95%, 90%, and 95% for the 3 techniques, respectively. Statistical analysis shows no significant differences between the model's prediction and ground truth. Conclusions: The model performance shows feasibility for application to various disease sites across different institutions. This model can be used alongside physicians and physicists during peer review chart rounds to aid in the detection of potential RT Rx errors.
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.