ArticleBMC medical education2025
National competition reveals common errors in target delineation among young clinicians in radiation therapy.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Automatic segmentation of clinical target volume for radiation therapy in breast-conserving patients and exploration of clinical factors influential to its performance.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Voxel-Based Dose-Toxicity Modeling for Predicting Post-Radiotherapy Toxicity: A Critical Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiation therapy's efficacy hinges on accurate tumor and organ delineation, a task currently dependent on manual methods prone to high variability and error. To address this, we organized a national targeting competition to identify and rectify common targeting errors among young clinicians.
methodsAn annual national competition in China was conducted for clinicians under 40, focusing on various cancer types. Participants submitted delineation work for anonymous expert review. The competition assessed integration of multimodal imaging and accuracy in delineation across different tumor types, including central nervous system, head and neck, lung, esophageal, breast, abdominal, pelvic, urinary, gynecological, and lymphoma tumors.
resultsInvolving 506 clinicians over three years, the competition revealed significant variability in target delineation practices. Enhanced CT was the predominant method for tumor localization. Key challenges included insufficient integration of multimodal imaging and inaccuracies in delineating lymph nodes, anatomical barriers, and tumor motion. The findings highlighted a disconnection between theoretical knowledge and clinical application.
conclusionsThe findings highlight the necessity of ongoing education and the standardization of training protocols for clinicians, especially for those in the early stages of their careers.
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.