ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Research on real-time detection of radiotherapy setup errors and intelligent quality control methods based on artificial intelligence and big data.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Retrospective intrafraction motion verification using triggered kilovoltage images during bone metastases stereotactic body radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate an unsupervised machine learning-based approach for near-real-time alerting of statistically abnormal six-dimensional (6D) radiotherapy setup errors. Using large-scale clinical datasets, the robustness of the proposed approach was evaluated across different immobilization methods and treatment sites to support quality assurance alerting. Methods: A total of 7,539 CBCT-based 6D setup error records collected at our center between May 2022 and March 2025 were analyzed. After data standardization and construction of proxy anomalous samples, two unsupervised models-Isolation Forest (IF) and Local Outlier Factor (LOF)-were developed. Model performance was assessed using ROC-AUC, PR-AUC, and sensitivity at a fixed false positive rate (FPR ≈ 5%). Subgroup analyses were performed by immobilization method and treatment site. Interpretability was explored using principal component analysis (PCA) and Spearman correlation. To provide minimal translational context, geometric tolerance exceedance rates based on translational and rotational thresholds were quantified. Results: Overall, IF outperformed LOF (ROC-AUC = 0.960 [95% CI: 0.956-0.964] vs. 0.880 [95% CI: 0.872-0.888]). Most immobilization methods achieved AUC ≥ 0.92 (range: 0.912-1.000), with dual-face SRT masks and neck-thorax mask plus vacuum cushion combinations approaching ideal performance (AUC ≈ 1.00). Interpretability analyses indicated that the AP, Pitch, and LR directions were the primary contributors to abnormality detection. Longitudinal evaluation revealed stable performance without model drift. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of applying unsupervised learning to identify statistically unusual setup patterns and proposes a closed-loop "setup-monitoring-alert" framework. The approach is intended as an auxiliary alerting tool to support clinical workflows, rather than to replace dosimetric evaluation or clinical decision-making.
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.