ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2025
Evaluation and tuning of a commercial automated planning system for prostate radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Artificial Intelligence (AI) based automated planning is increasing in popularity. Guidance has been published recommending approaches for the safe implementation and monitoring of these techniques. An evaluation of a commercial AI tool was undertaken and reported along with the specific methods used to evaluate, tune and monitor the plan quality. Materials and Methods: A total of 335 previously planned prostate patients were used to evaluate and commission a commercial AI based planning solution. The quality of the automatically produced plans was compared to previous practice using models inspired by existing research into knowledge based planning. A quantile regression based technique identified the most optimal historic plans to be used for model tuning. Finally, a control chart based method was validated for post-deployment monitoring of the produced plan quality. Results: The baseline model provided by the manufacturer was found to provide good plan quality overall with 9 out 15 plan quality metrics found to have lower variance after accounting for anatomy. Rectum sparing was found to be inferior to human generated plans. Two further iterations of the model were produced in collaboration with the manufacturer. Further iterations of the model resulted in comparable rectum sparing, a 0.02 mean difference in rectum V50 Gy, was achieved whilst maintaining much of the improved consistency. Conclusions: A method to implement the guidance for commissioning of automated and AI based planning tools is presented alongside a method for monitoring the subsequent plan quality. The final plan quality achieved was comparable to or better than the original plans following two revisions.
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.