Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41133049›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

AI in Radiation Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Current Applications and Future Directions.

Fabeha Zafar, Jessica Vilsan, Shinjit Mani, Ali R Al Yousif, Sandra E Cano-Reyes, Godwin Abraham, Joao F de Barros Neto, Bashir Imam, Moyosoreoluwa Aluko, Soumyadeep Sikdar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Fabeha ZafarDepartment of Internal Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, PAK.
Jessica VilsanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, IND.
Shinjit ManiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, Kolkata, IND.
Ali R Al YousifDepartment of General Surgery, University of Basrah, Basrah, IRQ.
Sandra E Cano-ReyesDepartment of Pediatrics, Hospital Pediátrico La Misericordia, Bogotá, COL.
Godwin AbrahamDepartment of Oncology, Midland Metropolitan University Hospital, Birmingham, GBR.
Joao F de Barros NetoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BRA.
Bashir ImamDepartment of Internal Medicine, Jackson Park Hospital and Medical Center, Chicago, USA.
Moyosoreoluwa AlukoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, NGA.
Soumyadeep SikdarInstitute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At its core, radiation oncology uses knowledge and expertise from multiple precise disciplines such as physics, mathematics, and computer science, which converge with biology and medicine. This is why the rapidly developing AI use in medicine has immense potential in radiotherapy at different levels, such as image reconstruction, volumetric segmentation, radiotherapy delivery, and treatment response. In this review, we aim to provide a summary of current AI use in radiation oncology, mapping in which areas these tools have already been incorporated, as well as their contributions to radiotherapy workflow. Here, we analyze how machine learning software increases the efficiency and accuracy of radiation treatment planning, delivery, and outcome prediction, providing a comprehensive picture of the advancements, limitations, and future directions of AI use in radiotherapy. The radiotherapy workflow consists of multiple intensive steps that are crucial to planning individualized treatment. The introduction of AI assures quality and standardization and reduces variability and time spent in processes such as image reconstruction, segmentation, and dose calculation. Deep learning segmentation reduces planning and delivery time without sacrificing quality. AI predictive capabilities enable clinicians to anticipate and reduce treatment-related toxicities through accuracy based on clinical parameters and image data. Building powerful models requires extensive and robust high-quality data that maintains privacy and HIPAA compliance and must be collected with precision and accuracy. This process, however, can present ethical and logistical obstacles, such as clinical validation needs and reproducibility standards that must be addressed to fully integrate AI into clinical workflows alongside human oversight.

Indexed as

aiartificial intelligencemachine learning in radiologyradiation oncologyradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID41133049
PMCPMC12543414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.