ArticleArXiv2025
New Insights into Automatic Treatment Planning for Cancer Radiotherapy Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence.
Article in ArXiv, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to uncover the opaque decision-making process of an artificial intelligence (AI) agent for automatic treatment planning. Approach: We examined a previously developed AI agent based on the Actor-Critic with Experience Replay (ACER) network, which automatically tunes treatment planning parameters (TPPs) for inverse planning in prostate cancer intensity modulated radiotherapy. We selected multiple checkpoint ACER agents from different stages of training and applied an explainable AI (EXAI) method to analyze the attribution from dose-volume histogram (DVH) inputs to TPP-tuning decisions. We then assessed each agent's planning efficacy and efficiency, and evaluated their policy space and final TPP tuning space. Combining findings from these approaches, we systematically examined how ACER agents generated high-quality treatment plans in response to different DVH inputs. Main Results: Attribution analysis revealed that ACER agents progressively learned to identify dose-violation regions from DVH inputs and promote appropriate TPP-tuning actions to mitigate them. Organ-wise similarities between DVH attributions and dose-violation reductions ranged from 0.25 to 0.5 across tested agents. While all agents achieved comparably high final planning scores, their planning efficiency and stability differed. Agents with stronger attribution-violation similarity required fewer tuning steps ( 12-13 vs. 22), exhibited a more concentrated TPP-tuning space with lower entropy ( 0.3 vs. 0.6), converged on adjusting only a few key TPPs, and showed smaller discrepancies between practical tuning steps and the theoretical steps needed to move from initial values to the final TPP space. Putting together, these findings indicate that high-performing ACER agents can effectively identify dose violations from DVH inputs and employ a global tuning strategy to achieve high-quality treatment planning. Significance: This study demonstrates that the AI agent learns effective TPP-tuning strategies, exhibiting behaviors similar to those of experienced human planners. Improved interpretability of the agent's decision-making process may enhance clinician trust and inspire new strategies for automatic treatment planning.
Identifiers
40895083PMC12393249What 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.