ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Using large language models to automate summarization of CT simulation orders in radiation oncology.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The daily dose: Early usability of an LLM tool for patient summaries and trial matching in radiation oncology.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Automated identification of radiotherapy treatment sites from unstructured physician notes.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Using large language models to automate summarization of CT simulation orders in radiation oncology.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the current clinical workflow of radiation oncology, therapists manually summarize the physician-issued Computed Tomography (CT) simulation orders to prepare patients' CT simulations. This process increases the workload, introduces variability in documentation quality, and is prone to human errors. PURPOSE: This study aims to address these challenges using a large language model (LLM) to automate the generation of summaries from the CT simulation orders and evaluate its performance.
methodsA total of 607 CT simulation orders were collected from the Aria database at our institution. A locally hosted LLaMa 3.1 405B model, accessed via the Application Programming Interface (API) service, was used to extract keywords from the CT simulation orders and generate summaries. The downloaded CT simulation orders were categorized into seven groups based on treatment modalities and disease sites. For each group, a customized instruction prompt was developed collaboratively with therapists to guide the LLaMa 3.1 405B model in generating summaries. The ground truth for the corresponding summaries was manually derived by carefully reviewing each CT simulation order and subsequently verified by therapists. The accuracy of the LLM-generated summaries was evaluated by therapists using the ground truth.
resultsOver 98% of the LLM-generated summaries aligned with the ground truth in terms of accuracy. Our evaluations showed an improved consistency in format and enhanced readability from the LLM-generated summaries compared to the corresponding therapist-generated summaries. This automated approach demonstrated consistent performance across all groups, regardless of treatment modality or disease site.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the high precision and consistency of the LLaMa 3.1 405B model in extracting keywords and summarizing CT simulation orders, suggesting that LLMs have great potential to assist in this task, reduce the workload of CT simulation therapists and improve radiation oncology workflow efficiency.
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.