ArticleMeta-radiology2025
Critical review of patient outcome study in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.
Article in Meta-radiology, 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.
- Does quantitative susceptibility mapping elucidate age-related alterations in deep gray matter iron deposition? A systematic review.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In modern radiation therapy for head and neck cancers, the treatment related toxicities remain a significant clinical challenge. This review critically evaluates the evolution of data-driven approaches in predicting patient outcomes in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Three transformative methodological advances are reviewed: radiomics, AI-based algorithms, and causal inference frameworks. The integration of linear energy transfer in patient outcomes study, which has uncovered critical mechanisms behind unexpected toxicity, was also introduced for proton therapy. While radiomics has transformed medical image analysis through comprehensive quantitative characterization, AI models have demonstrated markedly superior predictive capabilities over traditional approaches, offering promising avenues for personalized radiation therapy with reduced toxicity profiles. However, the field faces significant challenges in translating statistical correlations from real-world data into interventional clinical insights. We highlight how causal inference methods can bridge this gap by providing a rigorous framework for identifying treatment effects. Looking ahead, we envision that combining these complementary approaches, especially the interventional prediction models, will enable more personalized treatment strategies, ultimately improving both tumor control and quality of life for head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy.
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.